[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 561, H.R. 716, H.R. 1615, H.R. 2227, H.R.
2618, H.R. 2924, AND DISCUSSION DRAFTS
PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-854 WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
MARK TAKANO, California, Chairman
JULIA BROWNLEY, California DAVID P. ROE, Tenessee, Ranking
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York Member
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Vice- GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
Chairman AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN,
MIKE LEVIN, California American Samoa
MAX ROSE, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
SUSIE LEE, Nevada JIM BANKS, Indiana
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina ANDY BARR, Kentucky
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, JR., DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
California STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota CHIP ROY, Texas
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
Northern Mariana Islands
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York
Ray Kelley, Democratic Staff Director
Jon Towers, Republican Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
MIKE LEVIN, California, Chairman
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Ranking
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York Member
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia JIM BANKS, Indiana
SUSIE LEE, Nevada ANDY BARR, Kentucky
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Page
H.R. 561, H.R. 716, H.R. 1615, H.R. 2227, H.R. 2618, H.R. 2924, A
Discussion draft ``To amend title 38, United States Code, to
authorize State approving agencies to carry out outreach
activities'', A discussion draft ``To amend title 38, United
States Code, to require that educational institutions abide by
Principles of Excellence as a condition of approval for
purposes of the educational assistance programs of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes'', A
discussion draft ``To amend title 38, United States Code, to
require proprietary for-profit educational institutions to
comply with Federal revenue limits to participate in
educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs'', A discussion draft ``To amend title 38, United
States Code, to require that certain educational institutions
have letters of credit as a condition of approval for purposes
of the educational assistance programs of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes'', A discussion draft
``Forever GI Bill Class Evaluation Act'', A discussion draft
``VA Economic Hardship Report Act'', A discussion draft ``To
authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to collect
overpayments of specially adapted housing assistance'', A
discussion draft ``Legal Services for Homeless Veterans Act'',
A discussion draft ``GI Bill Access to Career Credentials
Act'', A discussion draft, ``To amend title 38, United States
Code, to extend the time period under which an election must be
made for entitlement to educational assistance under the All-
Volunteer Educational Assistance Program of Department of
Veterans Affairs'', A discussion draft, ``Student Veteran
Empowerment Act of 2019'', and A discussion draft, ``To amend
title 38, United States Code, to increase the monthly housing
stipend under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program for
individuals who pursue programs of education solely through
distance learning on more than a half-time basis.''............ 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable Mike Levin, Chairman................................... 1
Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, Ranking Member....................... 2
WITNESSES
Ms. Charmain Bogue, Executive Director, Education Service,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs........................................................ 4
Prepared Statement........................................... 29
Accompanied by:
Mr. Jeffrey London, Executive Director, Loan Guaranty
Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. David Carroll, Executive Director, Mental Health
Operations, Veterans Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Sean Clark, National Director, Veterans Justice Programs,
Veterans Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Patrick Murray, Deputy Director, National Legislative
Service, The Veterans of Foreign Wars.......................... 14
Prepared Statement........................................... 39
Mr. John Kamin, Assistant Director, National Veterans Employment
and Education Division, The American Legion.................... 14
Prepared Statement........................................... 42
Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA-ret., Senior Advisor, Veterans
Education Success.............................................. 16
Prepared Statement........................................... 53
Mr. William Hubbard, Chief of Staff, Student Veterans of America. 18
Prepared Statement........................................... 63
Mr. Jeremy M. Villanueva, Associate National Legislative
Director, Disabled Veterans of America......................... 20
Prepared Statement........................................... 70
Mr. Timothy "Tim" McMahon, President of Triangle Tech Group,
Career Education Colleges and Universities & Veterans for
Career Education Ambassador.................................... 21
Prepared Statement........................................... 75
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA).............................. 79
Tragedy Assistance Program For Survivors (TAPS).................. 82
SVA Graphics..................................................... 85
H.R. 561, H.R. 716, H.R. 1615, H.R. 2227, H.R. 2618, H.R. 2924, AND
DISCUSSION DRAFTS PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
Wednesday July 17, 2019
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U. S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 210, House Visitors Center, Hon. Mike Levin [Chairman of
the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Levin, Rice, Brindisi, Pappas,
Luria, Lee, Cunningham, Bilirakis, Bergman, Banks, Barr, and
Meuser.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE LEVIN, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Levin. Good morning. I call this legislative hearing to
order. I request unanimous consent that the chair is authorized
to declare a recess at any time. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
I want to welcome everyone to today's Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity hearing, where we are reviewing 18 pieces
of legislation within the scope of our jurisdiction. I am proud
to say that the vast majority of these proposals are bipartisan
in nature, something I consider a hallmark of this Committee,
and I think the Ranking Member would agree.
Title 38 GI Bill education benefits are the subject of nine
of the bills we have before us. This includes a draft from
Chairman Takano and myself to finally close the 90/10 loophole.
Under the current 90/10 Rule, Title 4 students have additional
protections that student veterans are not afforded. This
loophole makes veterans a target for low quality institutions
that are unable to attract non-federal sources of funding.
These institutions often use deceptive marketing techniques
and are financially unstable, placing veterans at risk of
losing their invested time, effort, and benefits due to a
closure. In our recent hearings on this issue, VA has claimed
that they lack the authority to crack down on these predatory
institutions. This bill, and others we will consider today, not
only provide that authority but a mandate for the VA to act.
I look forward to discussing these measures today in our
shared interest of protecting student veterans. We are also
considering five bills dealing with housing and homelessness,
issues which are crucial in my district, which I am eager to
address. In fact, we are going to have a field hearing in
August in my district on Housing Our Heroes, and I hope
everybody comes. Excellent.
One of the bills is my legislation, the Housing for Women
Veterans Act, which would require that at least $20 million
each year under the supportive services for veteran family's
program go to organizations with a focus on helping women
veterans. It also requires the VA to analyze and report to
Congress on the areas in which its homelessness programs are
shortchanging women.
At our hearing last week on the economic well-being of
women veterans, we learned about the unique challenges that
homeless women veterans face. They are the fastest growing
population of homeless individuals, having more than doubled
since 2006. Just unacceptable. And this bill will better
address their needs.
Lastly, we have two bills to update the Service Member
Civil Relief Act, and two bills improving small business
programs for our Nation's veterans. There is no question that
this is an ambitious hearing, covering many important issues. I
appreciate the hard work of every Member of this Subcommittee.
And the staff, thank you to our great staff, who have assisted
in getting these bills ready for review, and thank you for
working in a bipartisan manner to get that done as well.
And I would like to also thank the witnesses that are here
today for their testimony and for their expertise. I am hopeful
that our work today will lead to many of these bills being
passed into law. With that, I would like to recognize my
friend, the Ranking Member Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes for any
opening remarks he may wish to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF GUS M. BILIRAKIS, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
And thank you for continuing the bipartisan tradition of this
Subcommittee by bringing up the 18 bills before us today. We
really appreciate it very much.
While 18 bills in one hearing is a lot, I do appreciate the
efforts to continue this Subcommittee's tradition of
productivity. And maybe it will rub off on some of the other
Committees.
While I am supportive of most of the bills on today's
agenda, I am concerned that several of the draft education
bills may have unintended consequences. We have the same goal
and we will get it right.
The draft bills that would require a GI Bill eligible
school to obtain letters of credit comply with an expanded 90/
10 rule, and comply with program integrity rules, needlessly
imposes partisan ideas that would limit a veteran's choice on
how to use their earned benefit to our bipartisan Subcommittee.
We can agree or disagree if these changes are necessary,
but we should agree that VA is not currently equipped to
implement, and I want to hear obviously from the VA, to
implement these types of rules that are duplicative in some
cases of the rules in place for schools to be approved to
receive Federal student aid through Title 4. And this is why we
have the hearings, to make the bills even better, the drafts
even better.
I understand the Chairman's desire to improve oversight
over all schools, and I appreciate that very much, and I share
that desire. But I do believe that my bill on the agenda, the
Student Veteran Empowerment Act, is the more balanced approach.
Of course I would be. I would feel that way.
As I outlined at our hearing on school closures, the two
main provisions in this bill not only stress oversight over all
poor performing schools before they closed, but also provide
full restoration of entitlements to students who are affected
by a closure. More importantly, my bill would require that an
accredited school or program to be eligible for the GI Bill, it
must also be eligible to receive Federal student aid through
Title 4.
By using this approach, we can avoid duplication of
regulation and utilize the expertise of the Department of
Education to implement many of the same rules and regulations
being discussed today. I believe my approach gets us to the
same place the Chairman wants to go, but also keeps partisan
ideas out of the GI Bill, and I don't feel he has any partisan
ideas. They are not all his bills. But the fate of the 90/10
rule, letters of credit, and program integrity rules belong to
the Education and Labor Subcommittee, in my opinion.
Before yielding back, I want to express my support for two
other draft bills on the agenda today. The first is my draft
bill that would eliminate the living stipend disparity between
the full time post-9/11 GI Bill students going to school
entirely online versus those going to a traditional brick and
mortar institution. And I have had round tables in my district.
I have asked veterans up here to come to my office, and they
think this is a big issue. So I think it must be addressed.
Current law requires that online students only receive half
of the national average of living stipend payments, but my bill
does need work, and I am going to talk about that. The
landscape of higher education is changing, especially for non-
traditional students like student veterans, and the living
stipend payments to students should reflect that change. I know
that several of our witnesses have made the excellent
suggestion to amend this bill to simply increase the payment to
the full national average of the BAH payments.
This would help ensure that participants don't game the
system, not that veterans will, but in other words, we have got
to make sure that, you know, they get the proper cost of living
increase. But again, we don't want people to game the system by
choosing online schools located in parts of the country with
high costs of living, such as maybe Manhattan.
I appreciate the suggestion and intend to make that change
before introducing this bill. The final draft I would like to
speak about today would modify when a servicemember must elect
to make payments to be eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill.
Current law requires that servicemembers make this decision on
whether to enroll into this program and begin paying $100 a
month for 12 months within the first 2 weeks of their
enrollment.
Several of today's witnesses correctly point out that this
decision comes in the middle of basic training or boot camp,
and many servicemembers are not appropriately educated on pros
and cons of enrolling this program--in enrolling this program,
again compared to the post-11 GI Bill.
Mr. Chairman, we know that most servicemembers use the
post-9/11 GI Bill and it more than likely is a better choice
and does not require any payment by the servicemember to be
eligible. That is key.
The draft bill would simply delay the requirement to make
this decision by 6 months. I feel that is reasonable. This
would mean that when this decision is being made, more
servicemembers have completed initial training, completed their
MOS training, and are likely serving at their first duty
station.
I believe this approach will help servicemembers make the
right decision. When this bill is introduced, we may also
include a provision to prohibit new enrollments in the
Montgomery GI Bill, beginning the fiscal year 2029. We must
never forget the service of Sonny Montgomery. He did an
outstanding job for many years in this Committee as a Chairman.
This change would reflect the fact that fewer and fewer
student veterans are using this program. It is time to sunset
this benefit and have--again, just one GI program on the books.
I look forward to discussing all of the bills before us today,
as well as hearing from our distinguished witnesses. With that,
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for taking so much time.
Mr. Levin. Not at all. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. I
appreciate your thoughtful remarks. We have two great panels
today. I want to thank each of our witnesses for appearing and
look forward to your testimony and learning from your
expertise. As you know, you will have 5 minutes, but your full
statement will be added to the record.
On our first panel, we are joined by Ms. Charmain Bogue,
Executive Director of the Education Service at the Veterans
Benefits Administration. Thank you for being here. She is
accompanied by Mr. Jeffrey London, Executive Director of VBA's
Loan Guaranty Service. Mr. David Carroll, Executive Director of
Mental Health Operations at the Veterans Health Administration.
Thank you, sir. And Mr. Sean Clark, National Director of
Veterans Justice Programs at VHA. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Bogue, you are now recognized to present your
statement.
STATEMENT OF CHARMAIN BOGUE
Ms. Bogue. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Bilirakis, and other Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate
the opportunity to be here today to provide the VA's views on
pending legislation that would affect VA programs and services.
Accompanying me today are Jeffrey London, director of Loan
Guarantee Service, VHA colleagues David Carroll, director of
Mental Health Operations, and Sean Clark, national director of
Veterans Justice Programs.
Because of the timing of receipt, we will not--
Mr. Levin. Ms. Bogue, could you speak in the microphone? I
am so sorry. I just want to make sure your comments are caught
for the record.
Ms. Bogue. Okay.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
Ms. Bogue. Is that much better?
Mr. Levin. Much better.
Ms. Bogue. Awesome. Because of the timing of receipt, we
will not be able to provide views on all the bills, but we will
provide the remaining views in a follow-up letter to the
Committee.
The proposed 90/10 bill would prohibit the approval of a
course of education offered by a for-profit educational
institution if the school does not receive at least 10 percent
of revenues from sources other than Federal funds. As written,
we have significant concerns regarding the implementation and
administration of the requirements. Based on preliminary
research, we identified 133 schools that would be potentially
affected by closing the 90/10 loophole, which in turn would
immediately impact approximately 60,000 students.
Also, it is unclear if the intent of this proposal is to
replace VA's existing 85/15 rule or supplement the 85/15 rule.
We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee to address the
department's concerns.
The proposed Forever GI Bill Class Evaluation Act, which
prohibits VA from making the lump sum payment for tuition and
fees prior to 14 days after the start of the term. While VA
supports the intent of the proposed legislation, we cannot
support this bill due to the potential impact on GI Bill
beneficiaries.
Although this change could possibly decrease some
overpayments and debts owed to VA, we believe such legislation
would inadvertently shift the tuition and fee debt to the
student, and certain schools would still require payment for
the period of enrollment.
The proposed Principles of Excellence bill would require
disapproval of courses at any educational institution that does
not agree to or fail to abide by the principles set forth in
executive order 13607. While VA supports the intent of this
legislation, VA cannot support this bill to our concerns with
the potential impact under degree programs at public IHLs and
other programs, such as on the job training and apprenticeship
programs that are currently exempt.
Currently, there are more than 6,400 IHLs eligible to
participate in the POE. Of those, approximately 4,200,
representing approximately 700,000 GI Bill beneficiaries have
signed a POE agreement today.
The proposed State Approving Agency Outreach Bill would
authorize SAAs to perform outreach activities. No additional
money would be appropriated to perform these outreach
activities.
VA supports the intent of the proposed legislation;
however, it is not necessary, as the SAAs already have
statutory authority to perform outreach activities. For
example, authorized outreach activities include job fairs,
state military ceremonies, and student veteran related events.
We would be happy to work with the Committee to strengthen our
partnership with SAAs and the process by which SAAs approve
programs.
VA supports H.R. 716, if amended. Each year, the CHALENG
survey consistently reveals that many of the top ten unmet
needs among homeless veterans are legal needs. The Legal
Services for Homeless Veterans Act would require VA to make
grants or enter into a cooperative agreement to eligible
entities that provide legal services to homeless veterans or at
risk veterans for homelessness.
We note that H.R. 716 and this draft bill both address the
same issues, but in a slightly different way. VA prefers H.R.
716 and recommends that the Committee advance that bill, if it
chooses to assist homeless and at risk veterans.
The proposed Economic Hardship Report Act would require VA
to support Congress within one year of enactment, a report of
the economic factors that contribute to veteran suicides. We
fully support the principles and intended results of this bill.
VA already has the authority to provide information to
Congress, or conduct research studies. So the bill provided
would provide no new authority in that regard.
While VA suggests several technical amendments to the draft
bill that would provide express authority for the secretary to
collect overpayments made in connection with special adapted
housing, or SAH grants, VA supports the bill.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to present our views on the pending
legislation. We would be pleased to answer any questions you or
the Members of the Committee may have for us.
[The prepared statement of Charmain Bogue appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Bogue. I now recognize myself for
5 minutes to begin the question portion of the hearing. Ms.
Bogue, as I mentioned in my opening statement, one of the bills
we are considering would close the 90/10 loophole as it relates
to GI Bill benefits. This is a big concern in the area that I
represent in San Diego, as I know it is throughout the country.
In your testimony, you expressed concern with applying this
rule equally to training programs that don't have traditional
fee or classroom structures. How would you suggest adjusting
the rule to reflect these differences without giving such
institutions their own loophole?
Ms. Bogue. We would be happy to talk more about that, but I
believe there should be a waiver critera in there, similar to
85/15. There are certain schools that they don't meet that
requirement, and they are in a specialized area of the Nation.
They are only offering that program. It is a high quality
program. And we are able to at least grant a waiver.
In this proposed legislation right now, there is no waiver
authority associated with the 90/10 rule.
Mr. Levin. Appreciate that. You also expressed concern with
disrupting the education of students who are currently enrolled
in programs that would be non-compliant. I think you said 133
schools. How would you suggest phasing in the requirements,
assuming we were able to move forward with closing the
loophole, to address that situation?
Ms. Bogue. So there are two avenues we would suggest. One
is not an immediate disapproval of those programs, but to
provide some type of window of maybe 30 or 60 days from that
particular angle. That would be helpful to be able to notify
students of what is coming down the path, or to allow schools
to remedy the particular issue at hand.
And then the other piece of that is maybe you focus on just
new enrollments coming in the door versus current students who
are attending that program, so we don't disrupt their programs.
Mr. Levin. I appreciate that. I think we want to avoid
unintended consequences. What I would love to do is take you up
on your offer and we can work with Committee staff and the
relevant experts in the field that we have back home in my
district, and in other parts of the country. We have got to
address this issue and we have got to come to some common
ground and get to a place where we don't have those unintended
consequences, or we do the best we can to mitigate them. But we
have got to move forward, I believe, to close this loophole.
Executive order 13607, that you mentioned, established
principles of excellence to reign in some of the most abusive
practices that target student veterans. I understand that to
date, a number of high quality institutions have not agreed to
principles of excellence. And as you noted in your testimony,
many public universities do not directly control their tuition
charges, so are unable to accurately inform students of these
costs' years in advance, as the principles require.
Do you believe that this is the primary reason that high
quality institutions decline to participate in the program, or
are there other provisions that you think are impractical?
Ms. Bogue. The primary reason is the commitment to the
tuition and fee piece. For the public IHLs, they are not in
control of that and you have different boards or state
processes that they have to go through in order to get that
approval. So we know for a fact that is the number one reason
for schools not signing on to the principles of excellence.
Mr. Levin. Appreciate that. Well, we have the luxury of
being able to have enough time to ask you some more questions.
Something we don't often have.
To any Member of the panel, on the VA Economic Hardship
Report Act, can anyone discuss the level of insight we are
currently at in regard to the ties between economic issues like
housing insecurity, food insecurity, or underemployment in
poverty on veteran suicide. And as a follow-up, what level of
understanding do we need to be at and are we moving in the
right direction with this bill?
Mr. Carroll. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to address that
question. Thank you. We need as much information as we can get
to understand what the circumstances are that lead to death by
suicide among veterans in this country. And we are very
interested in the principles that are in the Economic Hardship
Act.
What we know from the research, and we can provide some
additional follow-up information about what we are sponsoring
in terms of VA and in terms of research. We know that economic
factors are often part of a constellation of factors, but they
are not the only factors. And as DAV noted in their written
testimony, it is important that we not just look at individual
factors on a one-off basis, but we need to really look at the
whole constellation of factors.
DAV provided what I thought was a great example. In their
written testimony, they noted the fact that there may be
economic factors involved in someone's life that could be one
of the precipitating factors. But maybe those are caused by
untreated mental health conditions, or an untreated substance
use disorder, or a readjustment issue.
And I think when we study risk factors for suicide and
protective factors, we really need to look at everything at the
same time so we can make sure that we are understanding what is
going on.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. I appreciate your
answers and your willingness to work with us as we address the
issues that you see in these bills. And we will get it right
and we will hopefully be able to move forward with consensus.
With that, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member,
Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Mr.
Chairman.
Ms. Bogue, while I know this is not within your control,
when should the Subcommittee expect to receive the Department's
views on the remaining bills on today's agenda that impact VA?
I asked, as the Subcommittee has not received views on all of
the bills that were under consideration at the Full Committee
legislative hearing on June 20th. So if you can give us an idea
of when we are going to receive those views, I would appreciate
that. Thank you.
Ms. Bogue. Thank you for that question. So we are actually
working through that, through the process right now. I expect
shortly after this hearing, within the next 30 days, you will
receive our position on those particular bills that we were
unable to talk about today.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. All right. I will move on. A question
for Ms. Bogue again. Many of the bills on today's agenda
seemingly duplicate some of the rules and regulations in place
for a school to be eligible to receive Federal student aid
through Title 4. And I know you touched on this. Do you agree
that it would be simpler to just require academic programs to
be eligible for the Title 4 funds in order to be eligible for
the GI Bill?
Ms. Bogue. There is some concerns there with just limiting
it to Title 4 because we have on the job training programs, as
well as apprenticeship programs, that don't fall under new
Title 4 that are eligible for the GI Bill program.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. How about academic programs?
Ms. Bogue. Well, in terms of IHL programs? Is that what you
are referring to?
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. Yes, that is right. Yes.
Ms. Bogue. Okay. Yes. We do think there should be alignment
in terms of IHL programs with Title 4, yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Next question for you again. What is
your view of the Principles of Excellence Bill, including
regulations that are outside of VA's control and could
effectively eliminate the GI Bill benefits for accredited
courses?
Ms. Bogue. I will tell you, that was our biggest concern
with that bill is the impact to non-college degree and OJT
apprenticeship programs. So we really want to, if something
like that is passed, to really take a look at how do we exclude
those kinds of programs from this particular bill.
In addition, it just references the principles of
excellence. So we think that there is key pieces within the
principles of excellence that could be codified, and we should
look at that and include that in the bill, versus an overall
general statement of referencing the executive order.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Again, I know you brought this up in
your testimony, but I want to expand on that. Do you believe
that the VA is currently properly equipped or staffed to
implement regulations related to the 90/10 rule or a rule
requiring that all schools provide letters of credit?
Ms. Bogue. We do express concerns with that in terms of
that work will heavily fall into our state approving agencies.
And we have had conversations with the state approving agencies
about that. And we think that there are some items there that
need to be addressed of leveraging synergies at Department of
Education to alleviate some of that burden for VA to take on
this new effort.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I share your concern about the
need for the SAAs to focus on enforcement and not outreach.
However, in your written statement, you stated that the VA
requires SAAs to conduct and report on their outreach
activities but does not reimburse the SAAs for the cost of
outreach materials. Why require the SAAs to do something you
don't reimburse them to complete?
Ms. Bogue. They report on the outreach events they are
attending. So if they are going to a job fair, each quarter for
the most part, the SAAs are providing us reports as it relates
to travel and other administrative costs. So we ask for them to
report on the actual events, not any other items as it relates
to marketing materials and things of that nature, because we do
not compensate them for that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. One last question, and I may have a
follow-up on here too. Do you know how many students would be
impacted by the proposed 90/10 change? You may have answered
this question in your testimony, but if you could repeat it, I
would appreciate it.
Ms. Bogue. In my oral, I did state that we initially
identified 133 schools that could be potentially affected by
this, which would in turn impact about 60,000 students.
Mr. Bilirakis. And again, I think you've expressed your
view on this, but let's reiterate. Are you concerned that there
is no waiver authority for the secretary to protect student
veterans, whose school may not immediately meet these new
ambiguous standards?
Ms. Bogue. We highly encourage that there be a waiver
authority. Right now, we have the 85/15 rule, which is similar
to 90/10, but instead we count students versus dollars, to
protect students from certain schools. And there is a waiver
criteria in there. So we believe that if something like this is
passed, there should be a waiver criteria that is imposed in
this as well. So that way, we can account for some of those
high quality programs that are doing what they need to do, but
they might not meet that 90/10 threshold.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I
appreciate it. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. I would now like
to recognize Ms. Luria for 5 minutes.
No questions from Ms. Luria. How about Mr. Bergman?
Mr. Bergman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And always a target
of opportunity. I see some uniformed individuals in the
doorway. And I thank you for the--I see one Order of the Arrow.
Was that brotherhood? Okay. Well, you guys look great in
uniform. Thanks for being part of scouting. It will make you
the adults that you are going to be in the future.
I just had a change a couple of months ago to participate
in my oldest grandson's eagle ceremony out in California. So
thank you for what you are doing already.
Mr. Cunningham. I will claim them for my state too, Mr.
Bergman.
Mr. Bergman. Well, you know, we don't get a chance in these
kinds of hearings to acknowledge all the good behavior that is
done on so many different levels. But it takes leadership at
all levels, whether you are talking about veterans. And by the
way, my scout master was a Korean War vet. Our scout troupe was
the only one in our whole area that knew how to do--march as a
platoon and do close ordered drill. But anyway, that is a
different story.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing today and for
including my bill, H.R. 561, the Protecting Business
Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2019. I am proud to have
worked closely with my colleagues, Representative Kuster of New
Hampshire, Representative Dunn of Florida, and Representative
Pappas of New Hampshire on this legislation.
I am glad that we are once again considering it after it
passed our Full Committee in the House of Representatives by a
voice vote last Congress. H.R. 561 would ensure that veteran
owned small businesses and service disabled veteran owned small
businesses actually receive the VA contracts set aside for them
by the VA Vets First program.
As a bit of background, you know, unfortunately some
companies have used improper pass throughs, meaning that they
subcontract out all or substantially all of the work to a large
company and nonetheless collect the profit. That is wrong.
These improper pass throughs have long been prohibited by
law, but they occur throughout the Federal government, and
especially in recent years seem to plague the VA, which lacks
the tools to detect them and to enforce the rules. And you
know, we want to make sure that the VA is armed and ready to
promote good behavior, but also to make sure that bad behavior
is appropriately punished.
These practices waste taxpayer dollars, they cut into
profits intended for veterans and service disabled veterans,
and sidelines the law abiding veteran business owners, who want
to perform the work. You know, on the legislative side, this
bill protects veterans and cracks down on bad actors and
loopholes by ensuring that every bidder in the Vets First
program must certify that they will perform the agreed
percentage of work required by the law.
Additionally, the VA must refer suspected violators to the
Office of the Inspector General for investigation, as well as
consider a more effective way to find, stop, and where
appropriate punish the improper pass throughs. Our message is
clear. We do not tolerate those who abuse the system and
disadvantage our hardworking veterans.
To the panel here, as folks from the VA, I understand that
this legislation may not necessarily be in your particular area
of expertise, but have any of you ever come across the issue of
improper pass throughs in your respective careers at the VA?
Okay. So not at all. You are focused in a different area.
Well, I wanted to say that it is one of those things, whether
you are talking about veterans' education and veterans'
benefits. When you think about when somebody leaves the
military and they have earned their GI Bill, and all the
different things that they have after honorable service, is
that it is important, I believe, that the VA look across
boundaries, don't get caught up in the stovepipes, to the point
where you don't look out and see what is going on. Because if
somebody has used their educational benefits, gotten the
degree, gotten the certificate that allows them to go into
business, we don't want to have that effort that they have put
forth, all that effort at that point.
So I would suggest to you it is always good to look outside
of our particular silo that we happen to be working in. And I
thank you for all you do, and I look forward to the next panel
here. But Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Bergman. I now recognize Mr.
Cunningham for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
I want to thank you all each for taking the time to appear and
testify, Ms. Bogue, Mr. London, Mr. Carroll, and Mr. Clark. We
appreciate the work you all do for our veterans. And I wanted
to tell you how much it means to us.
Specifically, I represent the First District of South
Carolina from Charleston, basically all the way down to Hilton
Head. And I am proud to say that we have around 70,000 veterans
in our district, and the highest number of veterans in the
entire State of South Carolina. So it is an issue that is near
and dear to my heart.
And, Ms. Bogue, I want to ask you something. In your
written testimony on the draft bill to direct the VA to study
the link between economic factors and veteran suicide, you
stated that the VA is already supporting research on the risk
factors associated with veteran suicide. Can you briefly
describe that research?
Ms. Bogue. I am going to defer to my VHA colleagues to
answer that question.
Mr. Carroll. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Cunningham, for
your support. And this is such an incredibly important issue
for us. So currently, the VA's Office of Research and
Development is working with the Henry M. Jackson Foundation on
a study to look at a comprehensive set of factors, that include
psychological and physical health, vocational health or
employment, finances and social relationships. And this is a
large study that is involving I believe over 9,000 individuals
in it. And there are some preliminary results. The final
results are not available yet, but we would be happy to make
that available to you.
Within VA, we have put together some programs to help teach
financial literacy skills to veterans. And as I referred to
earlier, I think just the general context for this is our
preference or our recommendation is to look at multiple risk
factors. We know there is never really any one single cause of
a death by suicide. It is multi-factorial: financial issues,
legal issues, mental health issues, adjustment issues can all
be part of the constellation.
I think often that leads to issues of loneliness or not
feeling that one belongs. So it is really so important from our
perspective to look at multiple things together, rather than to
do one offs. But this particular study does specifically
include the financial issues. And as that moves forward, we
would be happy to provide more information to you.
Mr. Cunningham. That would be helpful. Thank you so much,
and thank you again for the services you all provide. I would
yield back to the chair.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. I will now recognize
Mr. Banks for 5 minutes.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate you
adding H.R. 2618, my legislation, to this agenda as well. I
think all of us agree that military spouses shoulder an
enormous burden on behalf of our Nation. Aside from having to
watch their loved ones leave home for deployments, spouses are
repeatedly asked to move around our country, following the
orders that their spouse in the military receives.
As a result of these frequent moves, spouses in many career
fields are forced to sacrifice their own personal ambitions.
However, a portion of this burden can be alleviated with
administrative relief, which is the justification for my
legislation, the Portable Certification of Spouses Act of 2019,
which seeks to do this through two main objectives.
First, to improve the portability of occupational licenses
from state to state. And secondly, to alleviate the burden
military spouses endure when having to re-register a small
business in a new state. This is the first of many steps to
address these challenges, but a step worthy of bipartisan
support on behalf of our military families, which is why I am
very pleased that this piece of legislation is on the agenda
for discussion today.
Now, I understand that the panelists in the first panel
might have little to no jurisdiction over these issues. And I
have to head to another Committee hearing in a different
Committee here in a moment. Maybe the second panel might be
able to address these issues in their opening comments as well,
but I once again want to note my profound appreciation for the
bipartisan support of common sense legislation like this, which
could make a very real and meaningful impact on military
families and military spouses throughout our country.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Banks, and I appreciate that
sentiment. And I was going to give a shout out to the Boy
Scouts that were here, but it turns out they are all from Mr.
Cunningham's district. So they all left with Mr. Cunningham. So
there you go.
Last but certainly not least with our first panel, I would
like to give 5 minutes to Ms. Lee.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for including
my bill also, and thank all of you for the service you do for
our veterans.
Before I get started, I also want to thank the American
Legion, the Veterans Education Success, Veterans of Foreign
Wars, and Student Veterans of America for the feedback that
they provided me on and the Committee on my bill, the GI Bill
Evaluation Act, which is really intended to give veterans some
breathing room. Also to try to stop the practice of predatory
institutions which target getting veterans into the seat for
day one, and more importantly focus on shifting our payments to
encouraging success rather than filling that seat in the first
place.
And so I look forward to having some input on some of the
comments that I received. Ms. Bogue, the VA says it supports
the intent of the legislation, but has concerns with the
implementation. Can you expand upon that, please?
Ms. Bogue. Absolutely. So thank you for that question. So
our concern is that although it says that we don't pay until
after the 14 days window, it does not prevent a school from
actually collecting tuition and fee payments from the student
itself. When we looked at schools across the Nation, several
schools have 100 percent refund policy within the first couple
days of the semester, or a partial refund policy within the
first ten days of the school starting, the semester starting.
So we were concerned that if you have a 14 day window, and
then VA is not on the hook for the payment for the student--I
mean, for the school, then the school will go after the student
for the payment. So that was our concern there.
Mrs. Lee. Okay. Well, we will hopefully--we will address
that concern and hopefully we can get your support after doing
so. On these concerns, did you consult with any school
certifying officials? Have you gotten their feedback on that?
Ms. Bogue. We did. That is why we know the information we
know about the refund policy and the window in which there is
some type of refund policy for schools--I mean, for students.
Mrs. Lee. Okay. Great. My next question is to Mr. Hubbard.
I don't have--chief of staff--
Ms. Bogue. Wrong panel.
Mrs. Lee. Okay, wrong panel. Sorry. I will hold off until
the next panel. Thank you. I am done and I yield the rest of my
time.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Lee. I appreciate the questions
of all of my colleagues and all their hard work on this
legislation. And with that, I would like to call our second
panel to join us.
[Pause.]
Mr. Levin. Welcome, everybody. Everybody ready? All right,
all right.
Appearing before us today is Patrick Murray, Deputy
Director at the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Always good to see
you.
Next is John Kamin, Assistant Director of Veterans
Employment and Education at The American Legion. Thanks for
being here.
We also have Colonel Robert Norton, Senior Advisor with
Veterans Education Success. Thank you, sir.
Next is William Hubbard, Chief of Staff for the Student
Veterans of America. Thank you.
Also here is Jeremy Villanueva, Associate National
Legislative Director for Disabled American Veterans. Good to
see you.
And, finally, Timothy McMahon, Board Member of Career
Education Colleges and Universities. Thanks for being here.
With that, we will turn right over to our statements from
each of you. And, Mr. Murray, I would like to start with you,
and you are recognized to present your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK MURRAY
Mr. Murray. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its
Auxiliary, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
present our views on these important pieces of legislation.
The VFW supports the intent of the Student Veteran
Empowerment Act and have a suggested addition that could
improve upon it. Last Congress, this Committee passed historic
legislation to improve and expand the GI Bill. One of the VFW's
top priorities in the Forever GI Bill was restitution of
eligibility for student veterans affected by school closures.
Thousands of student veterans were caught off guard by their
schools closing due to bad financial management, and this
Committee authorized restitution of their benefits if their
credits would not transfer.
While this was incredibly important for those student
veterans, it only covered people during a certain period of
time. The VFW supports making a permanent fix for all students
affected by school closures.
We also believe schools facing financial instability should
require additional oversight and a back-up plan if they do end
up closing. This proposal would require additional risk-based
investigations by the SAAs to help identify potential
vulnerabilities for student veterans.
We also believe that, in addition to this proposal, schools
facing financial instability should be required to offer
letters of credit if they reach a certain financial threshold.
Institutions deemed financially unstable shall provide letters
of credit for Title IV, but not Title 38. The VFW believes
there should be parity for student veterans attending
institutions at risk of closure. It should not be the sole job
of VA and the taxpayers to make whole students who are failed
by their institutions.
Many of these institutions profit off of taxpayer dollars,
then the students are bailed out by more taxpayer dollars. We
believe that some of the burden should also be placed upon the
institution itself. Risk-based assessments, in conjunction with
letters of credit, would be a great step forward in protecting
student veterans.
The VFW supports the proposed legislation--excuse me. Sir,
I would like to yield the rest of my time.
[The prepared statement of Patrick Murray appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Murray.
Mr. Kamin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KAMIN
Mr. Kamin. Thank you, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member
Bilirakis, on behalf of National Commander Brett P. Reistad and
the nearly two million members of The American Legion, we
appreciate the opportunity to testify on these important
issues.
Before addressing the pending legislation, we would like to
extend a sincere thank you to the entire House Veterans'
Affairs Committee, as well as the Veterans Benefits
Administration, for all the work that went into honoring the
75th anniversary of signing the GI Bill. The American Legion
was proud to work with Student Veterans of America to
coordinate four receptions commemorating every aspect of the
bill, from home ownership to student veteran success. It is
fitting, then, that we carry on this legacy in these halls
today.
Now I am going to address 9010 and go a little bit off the
script here. VA raises some important points and there are some
challenges when it comes to it. I think that where we are
operating from as a group and what every other veterans' group
would offer is that perhaps the Department of Education would
not abide by eliminating the 90/10 rule for them. They know for
Title IV benefits they need protections and not their
protection; the Department has a vested interest ensuring that,
for taxpayers and for students alike. We want to see VA fulfill
the same function and have the same care for Title 38 benefits,
and be interested, engaged. Whether it is fixable through Title
38 or not, it is important that they are at the table to defend
these veterans and make sure we can come up with a solution,
because right now there is none.
Now, in addition to this, a separate issue of benefits
parity has long existed that has been a divide between online
learning and in-class instruction. And while the Post-9/11 GI
Bill has undergone monumental improvements to meet our
veterans' education demands, it has yet to properly value
online learning.
While in-person learning is awarded with a basic housing
allowance consistent with localized housing rates, online
learning is currently set at half the national average. This is
despite the education landscape's momentous shift towards more
online learning; this is despite the fact that many student
veterans with family and job commitments do not have the luxury
of time to attend classes in person. The American Legion does
not believe these students should be penalized for these family
and work obligations. As long as they are meeting their
school's requirement for full-time learning, the VA must honor
this commitment with a full-time basic allowance for housing,
and we enthusiastically support the draft legislation to
increase monthly housing stipends.
Just as The American Legion believes in institutional
accountability of these education benefits, we also believe
that student veterans need to be empowered to be the best
possible stewards of their GI Bill. The Student Veterans
Empowerment Act makes a big step in this direction by offering
a commonsense solution, requiring student veterans to submit a
monthly verification of their enrollment status for the purpose
of accurate benefits delivery. The need for this is traced to a
2015 GAO report that identified $416 million in GI Bill
overpayments. That is one out of every four veteran
beneficiaries.
While minor steps have been made to lower potential
overpayment issues such as school-certifying official training,
The American Legion believes that, 5 years removed from this
GAO report, overpayments are still a serious concern. And they
are unacceptable, because student veterans are often beholden
to school-certifying officials to send their enrollment
information to VA on time and accurately. A simple misstep on
behalf of a certifying official puts a debt collection target
on the veteran's back through no fault of their own. So let's
simply require students to verify their enrollment every month,
so VA can have close to a real-time information on student
veteran enrollment status, saving a certifying official from
having to conduct monthly reviews and affording them more time
for initial certificate of eligibility processing.
While this may be an inconvenience for student veterans, it
is not without precedent. To this day, the Montgomery GI Bill
still requires monthly verification through its Web-automated
verification of enrollment. It is no surprise that the
Montgomery GI Bill has no comparable issues with overpayments.
Outside of education issues, The American Legion strongly
supports H.R. 2924, the Housing for Women Veterans Act.
Since its inception in 2012, the Supportive Services for
Veteran Families Program has played an instrumental role in
assisting veterans and their families in exiting or avoiding
homelessness. In 2012 through 2017, the program assisted over
419,000 homeless and at-risk veterans. H.R. 2924 would
reauthorize the SSVF grant program for 3 years and specify a
gap analysis program designed to provide assistance to women
veterans who are homeless. According to recent studies, 30
percent of women veterans have children in custody, and, among
unstably-housed veterans, 45 percent of women have children.
It is critical that this population is reached to ensure
that these programs are having their intended impact,
especially when children are at stake.
Finally, I touched on the VA Economic Hardship Report Act.
The latest Department of Veterans Affairs National Suicide Data
Report found that more than 6,000 veterans have died by suicide
every year from 2008 to 2016. In 2016, the suicide rate was
five times greater for veterans than non-veteran adults.
The American Legion strives to ensure our Nation's veterans
receive the support and assistance they deserve. And, while we
are encouraged by some of what we heard on a recent House
hearing on oversight and reform for veteran suicides, the topic
of economic factors was noticeably absent, and we believe that
this an important step to ensure it.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to answering any
of your questions.
[The prepared statement of John Kamin ppears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thanks, Mr. Kamin.
I would now like to recognize Colonel Norton for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. NORTON
Colonel *Norton.* Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
Members of the Subcommittee. It is indeed an honor to be here
today and an opportunity to present the views of Veterans
Education Success.
I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, that it is a
distinct honor to be among today's young warriors and veterans
here at this panel. It really is a special opportunity for me
to be with them.
VES is a non-profit organization that provides free
counseling and legal assistance to students using their GI
Bill, and we work to advance higher education success for all
military-affiliated students. The Subcommittee today is
undertaking critical common sense solutions to stop waste,
fraud, and abuse under the GI Bill.
In our view, the very integrity of the GI Bill is under
attack. Defrauded student veterans have lost their one shot at
their hard-earned GI Bill. This unacceptable situation is
compounded by the fact that the Department of Veterans Affairs
claims to lack statutory authority to act on behalf of the
veterans they are sworn to serve.
Earlier this year, for example, the Education Department
cut off Argosy University for stealing Federal student aid
funds, but VA officials said they lacked authority to protect
GI Bill funds.
A few years ago, the Justice Department won a $200 million
judgment from a college chain for defrauding millions of
students, and sent the executives of another college to jail
for defrauding the Education Department. Also, earlier this
year, 49 states joined together to recover $500 million from a
college that had defrauded tens of thousands of veterans.
Veterans indeed are understandably angry when they learn
that a college that defrauded them remained approved for the GI
Bill, even though other government agencies had cut it off.
Taxpayers are outraged when they read news of GI Bill funds
continuing to flow to schools sued by the Justice Department or
raided by the FBI with a college president behind bars.
The VA Inspector General concluded last December that 86
percent of State Approving Agencies, quote, ``did not
adequately oversee the education and training programs,'' and,
quote, ``[the] Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) could not
provide reasonable assurance that Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
were paid to eligible schools, or that students received
quality education and training,'' end quote.
The VA IG estimated the VA will waste $2.3 billion over the
next 5 years in GI Bill funds going to schools that should not
be approved for the GI Bill.
With this backdrop, VES is grateful the Subcommittee today
is considering legislation to support better outcomes for our
veterans.
Of the nine bills before the Subcommittee today, I would
like to focus on a few for your consideration.
The Student Veterans Empowerment Act requires risk-based
oversight of colleges that are sued by the Federal Government
for misleading students. We encourage the Subcommittee to
consider additional forms of action that should trigger a
careful check by State Approving Agencies of a school's
worthiness to receive the GI Bill, as outlined in our written
testimony. Such as, for example, when a state agency halts new
enrollment, as the Texas Workforce Commission did after finding
American Technical College had filed false job placement
numbers.
We commend you, Mr. Chairman, for the draft Principles of
Excellence bill, and Section 3 of the Student Veterans
Empowerment Act, both of which would align the VA with the
Departments of Defense and Education, and giving VA authority
to take action against schools that violate the VA principles
of excellence. We urge the Subcommittee to merge the best
features of both bills.
VES also feels strongly that student veterans should have
the same rights as their non-veteran peers. For example,
student veterans should be able to recover their hard-earned GI
Bill when their school closes. We thank the Subcommittee for
considering legislation that, for example, in Section 2 of the
Student Veterans Empowerment Act, would accomplish that
purpose.
We also thank the Chairman for his draft bill to give the
VA the same letter of credit authority that the Education
Department has long used to protect student veterans using
Title IV funds. Our written testimony provides more detail on
the draft legislation being considered today.
For over 20 years, I have had the honor to testify before
this Subcommittee on GI Bill-related issues and, on behalf of
Veterans Education Success and my fellow veterans, I look
forward to your continuing bipartisan commitment to those who
have worn our Nation's uniform.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Robert F. Norton appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Colonel. I appreciate your feedback,
your support, and your service as well.
With that, I would like to recognize Mr. Hubbard.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HUBBARD
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member
Bilirakis, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting
Student Veterans of America to testify on the topic of pending
legislation related to veteran transition and economic
opportunity. As a higher education nonprofit focused on the
successful transition of veterans into the leaders our country
so desperately requires, we appreciate the opportunity to share
our perspective.
I echo my colleagues at The American Legion related to the
commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the GI Bill, and thank
them for their long-standing leadership.
We have submitted for the record a comprehensive written
testimony addressing the broad array of proposals up for
consideration today. Many of these proposals seek to address
the gap that exists between legal authorities over education
programs, and the divergence of these authorities between the
Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Education.
Many of these bills are a step in the right direction to
achieve to achieve parity between VA and Ed. We humbly offer
some additional considerations on each in an effort to make
them even more impactful.
This generation of veterans consistently demonstrates an
increasingly sophisticated approach to higher education. We do,
however, always keep a watchful eye for predatory schools and
programs who frequently seek to take advantage of VA education
benefits such as the GI Bill.
Previously, I testified before this body regarding the
ongoing practice of near-blanket enrollment of new recruits and
officer candidates into the Montgomery GI Bill. In response,
this Committee took swift and thoughtful action to address our
concerns, proposing draft legislation to extend the time period
under which an election must be made for entitlement for
educational assistance under that program. I would like to
focus the balance of my time on this issue.
The Montgomery GI Bill served our Nation's veterans well
for many years; however, with the advent of the Chapter 33
Post-9/11 GI Bill, the older program is now little more than a
superfluous tax on troops. Except for a few niche scenarios,
the Post-9/11 GI Bill provides more general resources and
better overall value than the Montgomery. Despite this, it
lingers on through the automatic enrollment of new
servicemembers who are not fully informed of the differences of
these education programs.
A recent Politico article put a fine point on the issue,
noting the clear disparities. I shared, ``At this point, it is
just a vestige of a bygone policy determination. They are
paying into it for essentially no reason at all.''
Why does this matter? Consider that the average paycheck
for an E1, a brand new private in the military, is just over
$800, and that is before taxes and deductions. Further, these
troops are also subject to the new blended retirement system,
making financial strains a very real prospect.
Of the $160 million collected from new recruits each year,
over $140 million goes unused and un-refunded. To put this $140
million into perspective, that amount could fund 10,305
students for a free ride at UC San Diego at the in-state
tuition rate, nearly a third of the entire 35,000-student
population, every single year. Yet, these funds continue to be
collected for essentially no reason at all.
When presented time to review information on their options,
servicemembers quickly discern which benefit is for them. From
fiscal year 2014 to 2018, a combined 94 percent of veterans
made the understandable choice to use the Post-9/11 GI Bill
over the Montgomery GI Bill.
For visual comparison, this is approximately what the GI
Bill looks like today. Overall, the antiquated program is on
track to represent barely 2 percent of VA education benefits
next year, a figure which has steadily declined as the Post-9/
11 GI Bill, now the Forever GI Bill, rose in popularity due to
the much more general resources afforded to student veterans.
Yet, due to current policies, new servicemembers are often
automatically enrolled in the Montgomery GI Bill unless within
a few days of entering initial training they submit a written
request to opt out. And, just to add to the confusion, public-
facing Web sites from the different service branches also make
it nearly impossible to get clear information about the nuances
of the different options.
In one example, one of the Web sites reads, ``If you sign
up and do not want it, there are no refunds.'' Another states,
``Monies reduced are not taxable and not refundable; monies
reduced cannot be stopped or suspended.''
We thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and the
Committee Members for your time, attention, and devotion to the
cause of veterans in higher education, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of William Hubbard appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Hubbard. And, without objection,
we will add the visuals that you took the time to prepare to
the record. Thank you for that.
Mr. Levin. With that, I would like to recognize Mr.
Villanueva for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY M. VILLANUEVA
Mr. Villanueva. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis,
and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting DAV to
testify at this legislative hearing of the Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity. DAV, a non-profit veterans service
organization comprised of over one million wartime service-
disabled veterans, is dedicated to a single purpose: empowering
veterans to lead high-quality lives with respect and dignity.
I am pleased to provide our views on the legislation before
the Subcommittee today that directly impacts the service-
disabled veteran community. My full written testimony addresses
the entirety of the bills on today's agenda, but, for brevity's
sake, I would like to highlight four.
DAV has a long-standing resolution which supports the
investigation, prevention, and monitoring controls over the
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, or SDVOSB
Program, and seeks to ensure that fraud is prosecuted and
companies that commit fraud are suspended or otherwise held
accountable. And also Resolution No. 303, which calls for
simplification of the verification process for SDVOSBs and
Veteran-Owned Small Business, or VOSBs. For this reason, DAV
supports H.R. 561, Protecting Business Opportunities for
Veterans Act of 2019; and H.R. 1615, VA-SBA Act.
H.R. 561 would correct a persistent problem in contracting
under the Vets First Program by directing the VA to work with
the Office of the Inspector General to identify and penalize
small businesses who take advantage of the program by utilizing
pass-through contracts, which occur when a small business wins
its contract based on a designated preference and then
subcontracts most of the work to a non-similarly-situated firm.
These pass-through contracts violate the principle and
rationale of these programs, which is to benefit the SDVOSB
community.
In a 2018 report, the GAO found persistent problems in
contracting under the Vets First Program by small businesses
who disregarded these subcontracting limitations.
H.R. 1615 would move the VA's verification of SDVOSBs and
VOSBs' responsibility to the Small Business Administration. The
SBA will therefore fully take over the certification process
government-wide and VA's separate verification program will
sunset.
Currently, SBA certifies small businesses that participate
in most Federal contracting preference programs, the exception
is SDVOSBs that are verified by VA to qualify for VA contracts.
GAO noted in its 2012 report on the SDVOSB programs, ``No
action has been taken by agencies to improve fraud prevention
controls. Relying almost solely on firms' self-certification,
the program continues to lack controls to prevent fraud and
abuse.''
The VA-SBA Act seeks to address this problem by instituting
an affirmative certification requirement for SDVOSB throughout
the Federal Government, to be implemented and maintained by the
SBA. To accomplish this, the Act transfers responsibility for
certification from the VA to the SBA and eliminates the option
to self-certify.
Finally, this bill guarantees that no self-certified SDVOSB
will be excluded from a contracting opportunity if the SBA is
slow to process its certification application and preserves the
unique VOSB contracting preference in VA.
DAV supports H.R. 561 and H.R. 1615, and we look forward to
working with this Committee to ensure their passage.
Mr. Chairman, the collaborative efforts made by the VA and
its Federal partners to end veteran homelessness have shown
significant progress in the decade since the U.S. established
the goal to eliminate it; however, there are still challenges.
A 2016 point-in-time census showed that 9.2 percent of the
adult homeless population are veterans and, while this is a
dramatic decrease since 2009, veterans are still over-
represented.
For this reason, we support H.R. 716, the Homeless Veterans
Legal Services Act, and the draft bill, Legal Services for
Homeless Veterans Act, and would like to thank Congressman
Panetta and Congresswoman Beatty for introducing these bills
that would authorize VA to provide grants or enter into
cooperative agreements with community entities to provide legal
services to veterans experiencing homelessness and veterans who
are at risk for becoming homeless.
In its most recent CHALENG report, male homeless veterans
stated that some of the top unmet needs were legal issues, to
include child support, prevention of eviction or foreclosure,
restoration of driver's licenses, outstanding warrants and
fines, and also discharge upgrades. Female homeless veterans
identified legal assistance in three different areas, including
child support, prevention of eviction or foreclosure, and
discharge upgrades.
These legal issues are often significant barriers in
obtaining employment, reuniting families, maintaining or
obtaining permanent housing, or seeking benefits or child
support to stabilize family income. By addressing these issues,
a veteran has a significantly better chance of ending their
cycle of homelessness.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I would be
happy to answer any questions you or the Subcommittee might
have.
[The prepared statement of Jeremy M. Villanueva appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Villanueva.
I would now like to recognize Mr. McMahon for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY MCMAHON
Mr. McMahon. Chairman Levin, Ranking Member, and Members of
the Subcommittee, my name is Tim McMahon. I am U.S. Air Force
veteran, proud of that, and I am here today representing my
schools, Triangle Tech, the Career Education Colleges and
Universities, and Veterans for Career Education.
I service as president of Triangle Tech, a nationally-
accredited career school with six campuses throughout
Pennsylvania. We enroll over 200 veterans currently, that is
around 20 percent of our student population. For every student
veteran and every student enrolled at our schools, we assign a
career advisor, a financial advisor, and an economic advisor to
every student throughout their entire enrollment. We try to
make sure that every student has the necessary support over the
2-year degree program in order to reach their potential
throughout their enrollment to graduate and to become employed.
All students at Triangle Tech have free repeat privileges.
By that I mean, if a student fails a course, we offer them a
repeat of that course free of charge. We also provide a free
refresher program for our graduates. If our graduates change
careers or change direction in a career and need refresher in a
technical skill that we've taught them, they're welcome to come
back and get that refresher training free.
We also offer a guarantee to every employer that hires one
of our graduates. By that I mean that if you hire one of my
students and they are deficient in any area for which we have
trained them, you may send them back to us and we will retrain
those students free.
I tell you this because much of the rhetoric points a
finger at what are known as fraudulent career schools. I have
been doing this 46 years; I have trained over 10,000 veterans
and placed over 10,000 veterans in job-related training--in
jobs related to their training. My veterans and my other
students earn an associate in specialized technology degree in
just 16 months. They attend school six and a half hours a day,
5 days a week, and they have a career advisor that connects
them with employers upon graduation. I don't consider myself a
predatory, tax-paying career school. I am fairly typical of
most tax-paying career schools.
I also serve on the board of directors of the Career
Education Colleges and Universities, a national association of
career colleges and schools consisting of nearly 500 campus
locations across the United States.
I am proud to be among the nearly 100 veterans that
traveled from across the country to Washington, D.C. just
before Memorial Day and helped to found the Veterans for Career
Education. We veterans founded VCE to support the right of
veterans to use their earned veterans' benefits, like the GI
Bill, to gain career skills at the college or institution of
their choice. In 2 weeks, VCE will begin a Let Vets Choose Tour
across America. We will be visiting over 20 career schools in
more than ten states for the purpose of listening to the voices
of the veterans enrolled in those schools, so that they can
tell us what their opinion of those schools are, and so they
can tell us how to make their experience better. We look
forward to sharing the views of those veterans once we have
accomplished that trip and we will be happy to forward the
results of that back to the Committee.
In a recent Gallup study, 71 percent of the veterans and
servicemembers who graduated from CECU member schools said they
were satisfied with their education, and 76 percent said their
employment is directly related to their degree or their
certificate earned at the career school. Our schools remain
committed to provide career-relevant education to those in and
out of uniform.
Regarding the draft legislation being discussed today, I
will limit my oral remarks to those bills that may have the
greatest impact on student veterans and career schools,
especially the veterans that choose our schools year in and
year out.
First, the draft bill to change the 90/10 rule to include
military and veteran education benefits in the 90 percent side
of the equation will certainly do more harm than good to our
Nation's student veterans. CECU commissioned research to
determine the impact that changing the 90/10 rule for tax-
paying career institutions and found that, at a minimum, 100
schools currently teaching veterans would close, and, in that
100 schools, the estimate is that over 100,000 veterans would
lose their opportunity for education that they chose.
This may seem to be a proper way to impact school closings,
but I would say that the biggest impact on student closings
caused by 90/10 would be to cause more of them unnecessarily.
The research also shows that over 400 public and private
non-profit schools would fail if they were subjected to the
expanded version of the 90/10 rule. The vast majority of GI
Bill beneficiaries attend those schools.
As a veteran and an educator, I urge Congress to advance
and ensure objective enforcements to the draft Principles of
Excellence bill instead of changing 90/10.
Future education policy must hold all schools accountable
if the true goal is to protect all veterans. It seems, based on
the rhetoric here in Washington, some advocates and Members of
Congress believe that veterans are being aggressively targeted
by tax-paying schools and that, by changing the 90/10 rule, the
issue will be mitigated. Simply put, that is just not true; it
won't happen that way.
[The prepared statement of Timothy McMahon appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Levin. Mr. McMahon, I'm sorry, but your time is up. I
appreciate your comments.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you all for your comments.
With that, I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Everybody will have an opportunity to address what was
discussed. And I would like to continue to be focused on the
90/10 loophole, and I appreciated the comments and concerns of
both the VA and some of the for-profit university industry.
And, look, this is very simple. I hear from folks that are
dealing with this loophole, there are far too many of our
veterans that we are poaching to take advantage of them in
order to get the other 90 percent. I am not saying all for-
profit universities are bad, far from it, there are plenty of
people doing very good things, but to deny that this is an
issue, one that we must work together in a bipartisan manner to
address, completely dismisses the voices of countless veterans
that I have heard--and I have only been at this job for 7
months--I have heard their stories, we have got to fix this
issue. Let's roll up our sleeves, let's get to work, and let's
get it done. We owe our veterans no less. All due respect to
those in the industry, you know we can do better than what we
are doing today for our veterans.
So, with that in mind, I want to get into the text that we
are considering and my specific bill to address it. It does not
provide the VA with any authority to waive 90/10 requirements
for certain institutions in extenuating circumstances. Mr.
Kamin, Mr. Murray, Colonel Norton, I would like to hear from
all of you on this. Would you support the addition of waiver
authority? If so, how should that be structured to ensure we
don't create a new loophole?
Mr. Murray. Sir, we would support some kind of a waiver in
extreme circumstances. Obviously, flexibility is always an
important thing. In previous bills, there have been the
Secretary has the ability to waive this clause if such-and-such
might happen, and we would be supportive of that.
Mr. Levin. Thanks.
Mr. Kamin. Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, we are not really
experts when it comes to this type of issue of waiver. We would
defer to our for-profit colleagues and say, how can we make
this work for you?
The idea that there is rhetoric associated with this that
we are anti-for-profit is simply inconsistent with the efforts
that we have tried to do to reach out to them to make it
accommodating. The simple fact is, there have got to be
guardrails on Title 38, the same way it is for Title 10. It is
not 85/15. If 85/15 worked, they would have included it in HEA
when it first passed. They knew there were ways to easily get
around that. It needed to be based on 90/10 for payments.
So, however we can accommodate so that the schools don't
immediately close, that it matches the guidelines for industry
to reach, we would be looking forward to that discussion.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
Colonel *Norton.* Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we would
be delighted to see language concerning a waiver authority. I
would just like to point out that, as you know, DeVry
University has on its own--it is a large for-profit
institution, has on its own declared that it will follow the
90/10 in terms of its own business model.
So this is not something that is an outlier situation.
Schools should be able to attract any student that needs to go
there, wants to go there, and provide a quality education with
outcomes that will enable them to have a successful future. So
we would be pleased to work with the Subcommittee and your
staff on waiver language.
Thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you.
Mr. Hubbard, anything to add?
Mr. Hubbard. I appreciate the interest and discussion of
this in this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I think it has a place in
this Committee, in this hearing room, in the fact that the
taxpayers who are veterans, who have served, are the folks on
the end of this discussion who are affected.
So, though I think largely it does have a place also within
the Department of Education and Title IV funds, we have to
understand the audience of this hearing, which is veterans, and
they are affected by this in a very negative manner. So I
appreciate you addressing that in this Committee.
In terms of the waiver, I think annual SAA monitoring would
be one step that might be considered, understanding the
importance of risk-based reviews. I think, if we are going to
grant a waiver, also following up on an annual basis to ensure
it is not being abused is one manner to potentially make sure
it is safeguarded.
Mr. Levin. I appreciate that. And, again, this is not
intended to be a condemnation of all for-profit institutions.
One of my very dear friends, a Marine Corps veteran, runs the
legal clinics, including the Veterans Law Clinic, at a for-
profit institution, the University of San Diego. And when I ask
him what is the number one reason veterans come to you for
help, it is to deal with student loan debt and, specifically, a
lot of issues pertaining to this 90/10 loophole. He is the one
that told me about it many years ago.
So we have got to fix it and, again, we want to work with
the community to come to a consensus about the best way to do
it.
I want to in the brief time I have left shift to the
legislation mandating that institutions agree to the principles
of excellence, some of you have addressed that, in order to
receive GI Bill funding. Colonel Norton and Mr. Hubbard--and I
would ask you to go fairly quickly in the interest of time--do
you think that state approving agencies are capable of
enforcing these principles of excellence?
Colonel *Norton.* Yes, I do, if properly resourced and with
the proper training.
Mr. Hubbard. I would echo that. I think they have a lot on
their plate, but they are definitely capable and have the
expertise to do so.
Mr. Levin. Thank you both. And I am out of time, for my 5
minutes anyway, but I would like to recognize Mr. Bergman, who
is filling in for Mr. Bilirakis. It is nice to see you up here,
sir.
Mr. Bergman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And let's face it, what
we are talking about here is doing the right thing for men and
women who have served their country, pure and simple.
I am going to tell you from personal experience, because we
are all a product of our experiences, during my 4 and a half
years in command of the Marine Corps Reserve, one of the
biggest challenges I had within our service specific was
getting our Reservists into schools controlled by the Marine
Corps, because--and this is not about the Marine Corps, this is
just an example that I believe transcends the philosophy of an
educational institution that it is about them, as opposed to
potentially being about their students--is an education an end
game or is it a stepping stone? It is a stepping stone, because
of the fact you don't become a student to become a student for
life, you become a student to get whatever certificate or
degree or training that is going to springboard you into the
next step of your career and your working career.
So, when you think about in some cases the inflexibility of
educational institutions, because it likes its product, we can
see the results in our education system across the country that
has yielded 18-year-olds who are not ready to take the next
step. I know it sounds like I'm preaching here a little bit,
but the fact of the matter is--by the way, my daughter is a
career elementary teacher and has been so for 20-plus years,
and works part-time with the University of Illinois to evaluate
student teachers going into elementary education, so I get
feedback on a daily basis. The education starts early on in all
our lives.
So the point is, as we look at education systems now for
veterans who, are they going to go into an educational system
right after they finish their active duty, or are they going to
go out and work for a while? Maybe in some cases even start
their own business first. That is why when we talk about--and I
am not going to spend much time on the bill that I talked about
earlier, the H.R. 561 that talks about the pass-throughs--you
are going to have some veterans who go right into the
workforce. They have hatched a business idea with some of their
buddies while they have been serving and they are going to go
out and start it right away. Only afterwards will they
potentially then go seek some certification, whether it be to
change their business or to upgrade their business model,
because now they have become successful and they need more
training.
So my concern as what we do as a body here, if we agree
that the GI Bill works, how do we make sure it continues to
work? Well, the bottom line is--and I am going to ask you a
question now--do you agree that by ensuring that the GI Bill
academic programs are Title IV eligible we would--you know, by
ensuring that, that we would meet the goals of the draft bills
that would integrate the 90/10 rule letters of credit and
program integrity rules into Title 38?
Mr. Hubbard. Congressman, I would love to answer that
question, I think it is very relevant for this discussion and,
as a fellow Marine, I think we both understand the importance
that all of our branches place on serving our servicemembers.
The point that you made that students come first is, without a
doubt, absolutely true in 100 percent of the cases with good
schools and so we applaud those. Some of them are represented
here today. And I think, ultimately, we do have to recall that
nearly 74 percent of servicemembers within 7 months of
separating from active duty will go to school. You are
absolutely right that some don't do that. So understanding that
dichotomy and finding a way to best serve them is something
that we are focused on.
I think, ultimately, the future of the workforce is going
to be dependent upon the ability to have these degrees and in
some cases advanced degrees as our society progresses. So we
appreciate your comments on that and would look forward to
working with you on it.
Mr. Kamin. If I can also add that, General, I really
appreciate those remarks and a very sagely perspective on the
role of education in our country.
I think, number one, the GI Bill actually, it does have
baked into it more room for innovation than Title IV funds,
that is absolutely correct. Both--not just 90/10, but also the
fact that we can do OJT, apprentice programs, credentialing,
and I think we do believe that that could be valuable for us to
be on the cutting edge of innovation. That carries with its
inherent risks. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 did
not--this was before education as we know it, so you could use
your money for anything, and when it was done, General Omar
Bradley, who had overseen the VA said, no mas, there is too
much corruption here, get rid of it. So the Korean GI Bill came
out and it was much less benefits, and we saw this trickle down
of benefits because of these concerns that innovation bred
corruption when it comes to how it was used.
So we need to be isolated and careful, but also take into
account that there are a potential for going beyond just the
spectrum of Title IV.
Mr. Bergman. And I see my--thank you and I appreciate it--I
am over my time. But the bottom line is, when you think about
serving in uniform, you have to be flexible, you have to be
willing to adapt, and my concern is that an education system
that exists for itself is not very adaptable.
So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Bergman. I appreciate your
thoughtful remarks.
I would like to recognize Ms. Lee for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Okay, Mr. Hubbard, now I get to talk to you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hubbard. I am getting ready for you.
Ms. Lee. Yes, just one question. SVA said you support the
intent of my legislation, the GI Bill Evaluation Act, but you
had some changes. Could you address the proposed changes you
would make?
Mr. Hubbard. Yes. And, before I go into that, I also want
to thank you for your leadership with the launch of the
Veterans Education Caucus. I think that a launch of that sort
and the attendance that we had was representative of the
interest in the issue of veterans in higher education. So,
thank you again for your leadership on that and we look forward
to working with you on many issues, including the ones that you
proposed.
Is there any specific questions that you had about those? I
would love to dive into them in detail.
Ms. Lee. I don't have any specific, I just wanted you for
the record to talk about what--I mean, you can be pretty brief
on what changes you would propose.
Mr. Hubbard. Fair enough. So, for starters, one of the
things that we have seen with regards to the GI Bill is
largely, when those programs were developed, particularly in
2008, there wasn't necessarily a focus on evaluating the
overall program. Much like the Department of Education has
rigorous evaluations that they do tied to all of Title IV
funds, unfortunately, the GI Bill does not necessarily have
that same mind set. And so, if you were to ask our friends and
colleagues at the VA certain nuances about these programs, they
don't necessarily have the capability to dive into those
details, because they are not necessarily collecting that
information.
So evaluating these programs is of the utmost importance.
If we are not able to evaluate them, then ultimately, we are
not able to show the return on investment that the American
taxpayer has made and, therefore, it puts the program in the
cross-hairs. So to be able to have that level of understanding
and capability is ultimately most important for the long term
and specifically for future generations.
Ms. Lee. So, you know, the bill is really intended to focus
on the payment and making sure that the VA is not paying for
classes that veterans eventually drop out of, and there is sort
of a disconnect between the timing and just really setting a
standard is really what the intention of the bill is about. You
know, I am all for us evaluating programs and making sure that
we are investing in programs that actually lead to economic
security for our veterans.
So, is there anything else in particular with respect to
that 14-day window?
Mr. Hubbard. Well, over the years we have seen things like
claw backs. There was over the last couple years some instances
of nearly over 200,000 individuals having money taken back from
them, because the way the program is set up currently it
doesn't afford the ability to assess whether or not they are
staying in that program. I think, if you look at things like
the Montgomery GI Bill, which still to this day affords the
opportunity for students to themselves certify, things like
that would potentially be worth considering, because it makes
sure that individuals are not in programs or program changes
that don't catch up to them for a long time and then force
people to be in a position where they are actually having money
taken back from them.
Ms. Lee. Great. Thank you very much.
Colonel?
Colonel *Norton.* Yes, Congresswoman, I would just like to
add that one suggestion we have regarding overpayments, since
the VA pays the tuition directly to the school, we believe the
overpayment should be--if there is an authorized recovery paid
back to the Government, that it should be done by the school
and not the burden put into the rucksack of the veteran.
Ms. Lee. Great. Yeah, I believe that is the intent. Thank
you. And thank you for your support of the Veterans Education
Caucus as well.
And I yield the remainder of my time. Thanks.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Ms. Lee. And, if there are no more
questions, we can conclude the hearing.
I thank our witnesses for their expertise and my colleagues
for their interest.
All Members will have 5 legislative days to revise and
extend their remarks, and include extraneous material. And,
without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Charmain Bogue
Good afternoon, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today to discuss several bills on the agenda. Unfortunately,
due to the late notice of several of the bills, VA will only be able to
provide limited testimony. VA will provide the remaining views in a
follow up letter after the hearing. Accompanying me today are Jeffrey
London, Executive Director, Loan Guaranty Service (VBA); David Carroll,
Executive Director, Mental Health Operations (VHA); and Sean Clark,
National Director, Veterans Justice Programs (VHA).
(1) Unnumbered Bill - Require proprietary for-profit educational
institutions to comply with Federal revenue limits to participate in VA
educational assistance programs
The proposed legislation would prohibit VA or a State Approving
Agency (SAA) from approving a course of education offered by a for-
profit educational institution if the school does not receive a minimum
of 10 percent of its revenues from sources other than Federal funds.
Federal funding would be defined in the proposed legislation as any
Federal financial assistance referenced under title 38, United States
Code (U.S.C.), the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) (20 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 1001 et seq.), or any other Federal law, through a grant,
contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other means to a
proprietary institution, including Federal financial assistance that is
paid to an institution on behalf of a student or to a student to be
used to attend an institution. This does not include any monthly
housing stipends under 38 U.S.C. chapter 33. The proposed legislation
is effective 180 days after the date of the enactment.
We have significant concerns regarding the implementation and
administration of the requirements and cannot support the legislation
as proposed.
First, the proposed legislation would require SAAs and/or VA to
calculate the overall ``revenue'' of for-profit educational
institutions. Based on the definition of Federal funds, VA believes the
term ``revenue'' is comprised of much more than tuition and fee
payments. The Department would need to have the proper resources to
review business accounts concerning all revenue across an entire
business operation to verify compliance with the proposed requirement
and is aware of no SAA with such capacity.
Second, the proposed definition of ``Federal funds'' is
comprehensive, which would create potential problems with
implementation. VA is not aware of any existing data source detailing
every Federal law that provides financial assistance to an educational
institution, on behalf of a student, or to a student ``through a grant,
contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other means.''
Verifying such Federal funding would, therefore, be difficult.
Moreover, this definition includes many sources of funding that are not
included in the Department of Education's 90/10 rule, which only looks
at Federal funds provided under Title IV. See 20 U.S.C. Sec.
1094(a)(24), (d)(1), and (d)(2). VA's 85/15 rule (38 U.S.C. Sec.
3680A(d)), which restricts assistance provided by VA based on the ratio
of students utilizing VA benefits and is not limited to for-profit
schools, is similarly much narrower than the proposed rule. Based on
the proposed legislation, VA and the SAAs would have to gather an
excessive amount of data regarding Federal funds paid to educational
institutions to determine the initial and continued approval of
educational programs; doing so in 180 days would be immensely
challenging. VA believes that the bill as currently written would
impose a heavy burden on the SAAs or VA in attempting to verify
reporting by for-profit schools. VA funds SAAs via contract, with
statute capping the funds available. See 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3674(a). Given
the highly detailed and unique information required to be assessed by
the proposed statute, VA anticipates that SAAs will not have sufficient
resources based on current funding to enforce the proposed statute.
Third, the 85/15 rule already limits which educational institutions
(without regard to for-profit status) may take advantage of GI Bill
funding, also addressing the apparent concern of schools that are over-
reliant on Federal funds. The proposed legislation does not include a
provision to allow currently enrolled students to finish their programs
that parallels the 85-15 rule and would provide no authority to waive
the requirements. Consequently, VA beneficiaries who may be enrolled in
an institution that does not satisfy the criteria in the proposed
statute would undergo a significant disruption, one that may prevent
Veteran students and eligible dependents from completing their chosen
programs due to a lack of alternatives, or because their GI Bill
benefits are exhausted prior to graduation because all credits
previously earned do not transfer to a new school.
Finally, the proposed legislation would apply equally to all types
of programs offered by for-profit educational institutions, including
degree, non-degree, flight, and on-the-job and apprenticeship training
programs. We note that some of these programs do not involve
traditional tuition and fee charges and/or do not primarily operate as
classroom education. Given the scope of the inquiry into school revenue
and school receipt of Federal funding, VA cannot provide an estimate
regarding the likelihood that any institution would, or would not,
currently meet the proposed requirements. The Department would be happy
to work with the Subcommittee to provide technical assistance on the
draft bill.
No benefits or administrative costs are associated with this bill.
(2) Unnumbered Bill - ``Forever GI Bill Class Evaluation Act''
Section 2 of the proposed legislation would provide the findings
and sense of Congress, including that:
VA provided $10.8 billion in Post-9/11 GI Bill education
benefits to almost 800,000 Veterans in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.
According to the Government Accountability Office's (GAO)
October 2015 report, VA made $416 million in Post-9/11 GI Bill
overpayments in FY 2014, affecting one in four educational
beneficiaries and about 6,000 schools.
According to the report, Veterans using other VA
education programs must verify their enrollment each month, but VA does
not require those using the Post-9/11 GI Bill to do the same. VA not
requiring Veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill to verify their
enrollment every month can cause significant time to lapse between when
Veterans drop courses and when this is reported, according to the
report, meaning VA's process allows Veterans to incur thousands of
dollars in overpayments and increases the program's costs associated
with collecting these debts.
Section 3 of the proposed legislation would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec.
3313(d)(1) to provide a limitation on when VA can issue a tuition and
fee payment for a program of education leading to a degree pursued at
an Institution of Higher Learning (IHL). Specifically, it would
prohibit VA from making the lump sum payment for tuition and fees prior
to 14 days after the start of the quarter, semester or term, unless the
Secretary provides for a waiver. Additionally, if an individual
withdraws during the first 14 days of the quarter, semester, or term,
VA ``shall not'' issue a tuition and fee payment to the IHL. The
proposed legislation would apply to a quarter, semester, or term that
begins on or after the date that is 14 days after the date of
enactment.
While VA supports the intent of the proposed legislation, we cannot
support this bill due to the potential impact on Veterans and other VA
education beneficiaries. While the proposed change could possibly
decrease some overpayments and debts owed to VA, we believe such
legislation would inadvertently shift the tuition and fee debt to the
Veteran as certain schools would still require payment for the period
of enrollment. VA's Post-9/11 GI Bill claims processing system, the
Long-Term Solution (LTS), is currently programmed to release awards for
tuition and fees no earlier than 14 days prior to the beginning of an
enrollment period. As such, VA would need to make modifications to the
LTS to implement the proposed legislation.
The proposed legislation would also require that VA not make
payment for tuition and fees if an individual withdraws from a program
of education during the first 14 days of the quarter, semester, or
term. As drafted, it is clear that VA should not pay retroactive
benefits for individuals if they withdraw during the first 14 days of
the term and benefits have not yet been paid. However, VA notes that it
is unclear how the statutory provisions in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3680(a),
which are generally applicable to benefit payments under the Post-9/11
GI Bill, and the proposed legislation would interact. Specifically, the
proposed legislation is arguably inconsistent with section
3680(a)(1)(C), which creates an exception to the general prohibition on
payment for withdrawals (regardless of timing) if mitigating
circumstances exist. Section 3680(a)(1)(C)(ii) dictates that mitigating
circumstances shall be considered to exist for initial withdrawals
totaling not more than 6 semester hours.
Section 2 also identifies GAO concerns with Post-9/11 GI Bill
students not having to verify enrollment each month, but the proposed
legislation does not make any statutory change relevant to this
finding. VA currently has a process to assist schools in avoiding
overpayments and minimizing student debts while also ensuring
educational beneficiaries can receive their monthly benefits payment in
a timely manner. Educational institutions are required to submit
certifications to VA within 30 days of the beginning of the term. VA
encourages schools to submit enrollment certifications prior to this
deadline through VA's dual certification process: initially certifying
$0 for tuition and fees, and then subsequently certifying the net
charges for tuition and fees. This process assists schools in avoiding
school overpayments by allowing them to certify enrollments as early as
possible with the term dates, credit hours, and other pertinent
information while leaving the tuition and fees field blank. Once the
school's drop-and-add period or another specified time by the school is
complete, the educational institution can submit the updated tuition
and fees amount. Through this process, schools benefit by submitting an
accurate tuition and fees amount to VA while also ensuring the
educational beneficiary receives their books and supplies stipend and
monthly housing allowance payments without delay.
VA also notes that the proposed legislation as written would apply
only to eligible individuals under the Post-9/11 GI Bill who are
pursuing a program of education leading to a degree at an IHL. This
change would not include eligible individuals pursuing a program of
education at non-degree granting institutions. In addition, this change
would also not apply to individuals pursuing a program of education
leading to degree while on active duty. VA would be happy to work with
the Subcommittee to provide technical assistance on the proposed
legislation.
(3 ) Unnumbered Bill - Require that educational institutions abide by
Principles of Excellence (POE) as a condition of approval for purposes
of the VA educational assistance programs
This bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3679 to require disapproval
of courses at educational institutions that do not agree to abide by
the POE set forth in Executive Order (EO) 13607 or at those
institutions that have agreed to abide by such POE but are in violation
of those POE. This bill would essentially codify the POE established in
EO 13607.
In addition, this bill would expand the POE by requiring
educational institutions and any third-party lead generator, marketing
firm, or company that owns and operates educational institutions to
comply with the Department of Education's regulations in 34 C.F.R.
Sec. Sec. 668.71 through 668.75 and 668.14. This bill would also do
the following:
Prohibit these entities from inducements, including any
gratuity, favor, etc. to employees or contractors for the purpose of
securing enrollments of Veteran students, with the exception of
scholarships, grants, and tuition reductions provided by the
educational institution;
Require refrainment from providing any commission, bonus,
or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on securing
enrollments or Federal financial aid (including educational assistance
under this title) to any person or entity engaged in student
recruiting, admission activities, etc.; and
Require refrainment from high-pressure recruitment
tactics, including making three or more unsolicited contacts for the
purpose of securing Veteran student enrollments.
While VA supports the intent of this proposed legislation of making
the POE a part of the approval requirements for educational
institutions and thereby ensuring Veterans, Servicemembers, and their
families receive the information and protections they deserve as
intended by EO 13607, VA cannot support this bill due to our concerns
with the potential impact on degree programs at public IHLs and other
programs that are currently exempt.
First, there are currently 2,176 programs at IHLs that, although
eligible to participate in POE, have chosen not to do so (6,404 IHLs
eligible; 4,228 have POE agreements - 66 percent; 2,176 without a POE
agreement - 34 percent). Of these 2,176 non-signatory IHLs, 579 are
public IHLs. From the beginning of the POE program, many public IHLs
have expressed an inability to commit to POE due to the requirement
that they provide a personalized form covering the total cost of the
entire education program. For a standard bachelor's degree, a school
must provide the student with a cost worksheet outlining tuition and
fee charges for the entire 4 to 5 years of the program. Since many
public IHLs do not directly control their own tuition charges (which
are often dictated by a Board of Regents, state legislature, or some
other outside advisory and oversight body), many schools have stated
they cannot guarantee tuition charges for years in advance and are
afraid of being accused of operating bait-and-switch schemes, and,
consequently, many have chosen not to be POE signatories. Under the
proposed legislation, if a public IHL is externally forced to raise
tuition charges during a student's program of education, it could
potentially be found in violation of the POE and face disapproval.
Second, VA considers the requirements of the POE to be incompatible
with some types of training programs, for example, foreign schools,
apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs, and other programs
that do not charge tuition and fees. However, the proposed amendment
would not include any provisions to exclude such incompatible programs.
Therefore, VA would encourage Congress to work with VA to determine a
list of excluded programs for explicit exemption in the statute or to
include a provision that would allow the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to establish a list of program types that would be exempt from the
proposed rule.
Third, VA is extremely concerned that adequate enforcement of
proposed section 3679(f)(2)(B) would be beyond the administrative
capabilities of SAAs. As currently written, the proposed prohibitions
are far-reaching (applying to third parties and associated companies),
require gathering of evidence to determine whether a violation of
subjective standards has occurred, and appear to require adjudications
that are highly complex, potentially contentious, and extremely
resource intensive by the SAA and/or VA that are independent of any
such determinations already made by the Department of Education. Since
the proposed requirements would apply to third-party and parent
companies, verification of compliance could significantly increase the
volume of corporate records that an SAA would have to review.
Implementation of these rules may overload existing SAA resources. VA
funds SAAs via contract, with statute capping the funds available. See
38 U.S.C. Sec. 3674(a). Given the highly detailed and unique
information required to be assessed by the proposed statute, VA
anticipates that SAAs would not have sufficient resources based on
current funding to enforce the proposed statute. Proposed subsection
(f)(2)(B)(ii)(II) also appears to be partially duplicative of 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3696(d)(1), which already prohibits VA from approving enrollments
and paying benefits based on courses offered by educational
institutions providing commissions, bonuses, or other incentive
payments related to recruiting success.
Fourth, VA opposes the direct incorporation of another agency's
regulations into a statutory limitation on participation in VA
benefits. Regulations codified in title 34, C.F.R., implement
Department of Education requirements, not VA requirements. This means
that title 34 rules may be changed by the Department of Education
without consultation or oversight by VA and could lead to a situation
in which Department of Education's unilateral actions lead to the de
facto disapprovals for purposes of GI Bill programs. Furthermore, SAAs
have no expertise regarding the title 34 requirements and, therefore,
the incorporation of these novel requirements would create a larger
administrative burden.
Fifth, the specific title 34 regulations incorporated would appear
to effectively eliminate GI Bill benefits for unaccredited courses.
Currently, statute allows for GI Bill benefits to be used for courses
that are accredited and unaccredited. 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3675
(detailing approval requirements for accredited courses), 3676
(detailing approval requirements for unaccredited courses). Congress
does not appear to have afforded such discretion for participation in
Title IV programs, instead requiring the Department of Education to
recognize accrediting bodies, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1099b, enter into
agreements with schools that will provide adequate information to
accreditors, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1094(a)(3)(C), and verify that schools are
accredited, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1099c(a). One of the title 34 regulations
that the proposed law incorporates into the POE that would become
mandatory for GI Bill participation appears to implement the statutory
requirement that schools enter into an agreement with the Department of
Education. See 34 C.F.R. Sec. 668.14. Therefore, it appears that the
proposed statute would create standards that could only be met by
schools that have met Department of Education requirements, including
accreditation, which would effectively eliminate VA's ability to pay
benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3676. VA is unaware of any
indication that this is the intent of the proposed statute and would be
happy to work with the Subcommittee to provide technical assistance on
the draft bill.
Finally, VA would recommend that the POE requirements be codified
in title 38, U.S.C. Otherwise, educational institutions, SAAs, and
other stakeholders will have to separately search out those statutorily
imposed requirements and may have concerns regarding the official or
authoritative source for the statutory requirements and/or confusion as
to whether or not a version of the POE they find is the one that was
effective on the date of enactment of the subsection.
As a technical matter, VA also notes that the words ``Executive
Order 13607'' appear to have been inadvertently omitted after the word
``under'' in proposed section 3679(f)(1)(A).
(4) Unnumbered Bill - Authorize State Approving Agencies to carry out
outreach activities
The draft legislation would add a new subsection (f) in 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3673, which would authorize an SAA to carry out outreach
activities. No additional amounts would be appropriated to perform the
outreach activities.
VA supports the intent of the proposed legislation; however, we do
not support the bill because we believe it is unnecessary as the SAAs
are currently required to perform outreach activities. Section
3672(d)(2) specifies that, in conjunction with outreach services
provided by VA under 38 U.S.C. chapter 77 for education and training
benefits, each SAA shall conduct outreach programs and provide outreach
services to eligible persons and Veterans about education and training
benefits available under Federal and State law. VA's cooperative
agreement with SAAs includes tasks such as providing technical
assistance, training, and outreach as a function and allots a
percentage of time to perform those functions.
VA believes the SAAs are currently fulfilling their compliance and
oversight role with educational institutions and have limited funding
to engage with individuals for expanded outreach responsibilities. VA
currently reimburses SAAs for their work related to outreach events and
functions and the travel associated with them. While VA cannot directly
pay for outreach materials itself, VA pays an administrative funding
based on salary reimbursement under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3674(b) and these
funds may be used for printing, marketing materials, mailings,
information technology services, web platforms, etc. It is unclear what
additional outreach duties SAAs are being asked to fulfill within this
proposed legislation. VA is unsure if the SAAs' current cooperative
agreement funding will support the additional costs to enhance outreach
efforts to eligible VA educational assistance students, nor do we
believe the SAA offices have the additional manpower to perform an
expanded outreach effort.
As a technical matter, we note that this bill would add a new
subsection (f) to section 3673. However, the last subsection under
section 3673 is currently subsection (d).
No benefits or administrative costs are associated with this bill.
(5) Unnumbered Bill - Legal Services for Homeless Veterans Act
The draft bill would create new 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2022A, which would
require VA, subject to the availability of appropriations for such
purpose, to make grants or enter into cooperative agreements to
eligible entities that provide legal services to homeless Veterans and
Veterans at risk for homelessness. VA would have to establish criteria
and requirements for grants and cooperative agreements and publish
those criteria and requirements in the Federal Register. VA would be
required to consult with organizations that have experience in
providing services to homeless Veterans in establishing these criteria
and requirements. VA could only make grants or enter into cooperative
agreements with entities if they (1) are a public or non-profit private
entity with the capacity (as determined by VA) to effectively
administer a grant or cooperative agreement; (2) demonstrate that
adequate financial support will be available to carry out the services
for which the grant or cooperative agreement is sought; and (3) agree
to meet the applicable criteria and requirements established by VA and
have demonstrated the capacity to meet such criteria and requirements.
Funds provided under grants or cooperative agreements would have to be
used to provide legal services to homeless Veterans and Veterans at
risk for homelessness to address legal matters that contribute to the
risk of becoming and remaining homeless. VA would have to report once
every 2 years on grants and cooperative agreements under this section.
To the extent feasible, each report would have to identify the number
of homeless Veterans assisted; a description of the legal services
provided; a description of the legal matters addressed; and an analysis
by VA of the operational effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the
services provided. Subsection (c) would require VA, within 90 days of
the date of the enactment of this Act, to establish in the Federal
Register the criteria and requirements for grants and cooperative
agreements.
As we note in our discussion of H.R. 716, infra, legal services
remain a crucial but largely unmet need for homeless and at-risk
Veterans and generally speaking, we welcome the opportunity to support
the provision of legal services to homeless and at-risk Veterans.
However, VA recommends technical edits to the bill language.
First, the bill would authorize VA to make grants to or enter into
cooperative agreements with eligible entities to provide legal services
to homeless Veterans or at-risk Veterans. We note that VA has not
established parameters under which cooperative agreements would be
used, so we recommend against including language suggesting this
program would be anything other than a grant program. VA has
significant expertise in administering grant programs, particularly as
a means of assisting homeless or at-risk Veterans. Second, the bill
would direct VA to establish criteria and requirements within 90 days
of enactment. We believe VA would need to issue regulations to
implement this authority appropriately, and 90 days would be an
inadequate amount of time to develop effective regulations. We are
concerned that if VA were forced to attempt to issue regulations within
90 days, we would be unable to design and build an effective program.
We are also concerned about the requirement to consult with
organizations that have experience in providing services to homeless
Veterans within this timeframe. If VA were provided additional time-for
example, 1 year from enactment-VA could consult with such organizations
through the standard regulatory process. This also would ensure the
general public's awareness and participation in the development of the
program, as well as the participation of a broad spectrum of
organizations with experience in providing services to homeless
Veterans. There are other technical amendments we would recommend, and
we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with the
Subcommittee.
We note that H.R. 716 and the draft ``Legal Services for Homeless
Veterans Act'' both address the same issue with slightly different
approaches, and we appreciate the Committee's and the sponsors'
interest and commitment. While both bills, with the modifications
identified in our testimony, could be supported by VA, we prefer H.R.
716 and recommend the Committee advance that bill if it chooses to
assist homeless and at-risk Veterans.
We estimate the draft bill would cost $750,000 in FY 2021, $779,250
in FY 2022, $4.05 million over 5 years, and $8.96 million over 10
years.
(6) Unnumbered Bill - VA Economic Hardship Report Act
This draft bill would require VA to submit to Congress within 1
year of enactment a report on the economic factors that contribute to
Veteran suicides. The report would have to identify the number of
Veterans: who are homeless; who are housing insecure; living in
poverty; who are food insecure; who earn at or below minimum wage; and
who have died by suicide or attempted suicide and who are, or were at
the time of such suicide or attempted suicide, homeless, in poverty, or
food insecure. Not later than 180 days after submitting the report, VA
would be required to conduct a study on the link between poverty, food
insecurity, housing insecurity, and Veteran suicide.
We fully support the principles and intended result of the bill,
because it is consistent with VA's goals and current efforts. The more
information we have in terms of the factors that result in Veterans
attempting suicide or dying by suicide, the better we can develop
effective public health and individual interventions to reduce
suicidality. However, we do not support the bill as written. Initially,
we note that VA already has the authority to provide information to
Congress or conduct research studies, so the bill would provide no new
authority in that regard. Additionally, several of the terms used in
the draft bill are undefined and several of the provisions in this bill
would require information that is not available to VA. We further note
that, among the issues identified in the bill, several are not
currently available in a timely fashion, and multiple years' worth of
information may need to be combined to facilitate appropriate analyses
to examine potential associations between the required data elements
and the risk of suicide. Similarly, the data sources for socioeconomic
factors listed in the bill are de-identified and available only at a
population level or as part of a standardized survey; they are not
tracked at the individual level. Therefore, any potential association
between these factors and Veteran suicide could be examined at a
population level but not individually. We note that it is unclear
whether the requirement in subsection (b) to ``conduct'' a ``study''
means that VA must commence a study or complete a study. If the intent
of the bill is for VA to complete a study within 180 days of submitting
the report required by subsection (a), this would require either that
VA delay the submission of that report or rush a study through the
process, compromising its validity and reliability. Also, VA is already
supporting research that will improve our understanding of risk factors
associated with suicidality, and we are concerned that the approach
suggested here could be too narrow to produce meaningful results.
We do not have a cost estimate for this bill.
(7) Unnumbered Bill - Authorize the Secretary to collect overpayments
of Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) assistance
The unnumbered bill would provide express authority for the
Secretary to collect overpayments made in connection with SAH grants
awarded under 38 U.S.C. chapter 21. The SAH program provides grants to
eligible Veterans so that they can acquire housing adaptations made
necessary by the nature of certain service-connected disabilities. VA's
Loan Guaranty Service (LGY) administers the SAH program.
Most eligible Veterans receive SAH grants under 38 U.S.C. Sec.
2101(a) or (b). Grants authorized under section 2101(a) are most
commonly used for making homes wheelchair accessible. Grants authorized
under section 2101(b) are generally used to mitigate other mobility-
related issues throughout homes. Temporary Residence Adaptation (TRA)
grants, authorized under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2102A, are available to
Veterans who reside temporarily with family members and need to adapt a
family member's home to meet the Veteran's needs. Under 38 U.S.C. Sec.
2102B, housing adaptations necessitated by a Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment (VR&E) rehabilitation plan must be furnished under the
SAH program. Since 2016, VA has made SAH Assistive Technology (SAHAT)
grant funding available to individuals, researchers, and organizations
to develop new technology that will expand home modification options
for Veterans and enhance their ability to live in specially adapted
homes.
The chapter 21 statutes set forth Veterans' eligibility standards,
which include criteria relating to entitlement for compensation under
38 U.S.C. chapter 11, term of military service, nature of disability,
legal right to occupy the home, and ability to afford the home.
Congress established maximum aggregate amounts of assistance available
under section 2101(a) and (b) grants and directed VA to increase such
limits to correspond with increases in the residential home cost-of-
construction index.
If a Veteran meets the eligibility criteria, it is feasible that
the Veteran can live in an adapted home, the property is suitable for
adaptation, and the Veteran has not exceeded the usage or dollar
limitations, LGY can conditionally approve SAH assistance. Upon
conditional approval, a Veteran may incur certain preconstruction
costs, e.g., necessary architectural services, land surveys, and legal
fees. If construction plans demonstrate compliance with SAH standards
and the Veteran enjoys the requisite property interest in the home, LGY
can issue a final approval of the SAH grant. In many cases, upon final
approval, LGY disburses the grant funds to a third-party escrow agent,
as authorized by 38 C.F.R. Sec. 36.4406(b). Also, upon final approval,
the Veteran enters into a private contract with a builder to implement
the adaptations.
Throughout construction, the SAH Agent continues to assist the
Veteran as needed. The SAH Agent also approves the disbursement of
grant funds from escrow as the builder completes certain construction
milestones. In cases where disputes arise between the Veteran and the
builder, the SAH Agent and other LGY personnel attempt to coordinate
with both parties such that a favorable result can be accomplished for
the Veteran. However, in some cases, Veterans must resort to retaining
private counsel to pursue claims against builders. LGY has also
encountered other cases where Veterans are unsatisfied with the quality
of work provided by builders at early stages of construction. In one
such case, a Veteran would not allow the builder to re-enter the home
to remedy purported deficiencies and complete the project. In these
dispute cases, some portion of SAH grant funds might have already been
disbursed to builders or to Veterans. For example, VA's regulation at
38 C.F.R. Sec. 36.4406(b) allows payment of SAH funds directly to a
Veteran who incurs certain preconstruction costs. In another case, a
builder might receive a disbursement from escrow at the midpoint of a
construction process, only to abscond with the funds and never finish
the project.
Currently, LGY lacks explicit authority to recover misappropriated
SAH funds. In cases where LGY determines that a builder has performed
substandard work or absconded with grant funds, LGY can record a
Veteran's complaint in the SAH system of record and can also exclude
the builder from further participation in SAH projects by issuing a
Limited Denial of Participation (LDP) under 2 C.F.R. Sec. 801.1100.
LGY can also refer the case to VA's Office of Inspector General and the
U.S. Department of Justice. These actions can help to mitigate the risk
that such builders will harm other Veterans. However, given the private
nature of the contracts between Veterans, builders, and escrow agents,
and depending on which entity holds the funds at the time of a dispute,
LGY cannot easily recover the grant funds. This is true even in cases
where LGY is relatively certain that, for example, a builder performed
shoddy work and damaged a Veteran's home.
The unnumbered bill would add a new subsection (f) to 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 2102 to authorize the Secretary to collect overpayments when they
occur. Subsection (f)(1) would authorize the Secretary to determine
whether an overpayment has been made to a person described by
subsection (f)(2), as a result of a breach of contract. Subsection
(f)(1) would also establish that such overpayments constitute a
liability of such persons to the United States. Subsection (f)(2) lists
such persons as (A) an individual who applied for SAH assistance, (B)
an owner or seller of real estate associated with SAH assistance, (C) a
builder, contractor, supplier, tradesperson, corporation, partnership,
or person related to or associated with delivery of SAH assistance, (D)
an attorney, escrow agent, or financial institution that receives, or
holds in escrow, funds directly or indirectly relating to SAH
assistance, and (E) a surviving spouse, heir, assignee, or successor in
interest of or to, any person described above. Subsection (f)(3) would
allow for any overpayment to be recovered in the same manner as any
other debt due the United States. Subsection (f)(4) would authorize the
Secretary to waive any overpayment as to an individual who applied for
SAH assistance. However, such waiver would not release any other person
described in subsection (f)(2) from liability. Subsection (f)(5) would
expressly provide that recovery of overpayments under subsection (f)
would not preclude the imposition of any civil or criminal liability
under any other law. Subsection (f)(6) would require that the Secretary
define in regulations what constitutes an overpayment under subsection
(f), to include, at a minimum, the failure of any person to perform or
allow to be performed any SAH work or the failure to compensate any
party performing services or supplying goods associated with SAH.
Subsection (f)(6) would also require that such regulations include in
the definition of ``overpayment'' any disbursement of SAH funds that,
in the sole discretion of the Secretary, constitutes a misuse of such
funds. Subsection (f)(7) would require the Secretary to notify a person
to which an overpayment was made of the Secretary's finding of such
overpayment and to provide a reasonable opportunity for such person to
cure or remedy the breach, error, or circumstance that effectuated the
overpayment.
While VA suggests several technical amendments to the bill as
drafted, generally, VA supports the bill. VA believes that authorizing
the Secretary to hold a person listed by proposed 38 U.S.C. Sec.
2102(f)(2) liable for overpayments would deter such parties from
unilaterally terminating contracts involving SAH assistance, or
otherwise expending grant funds for improper or unauthorized purposes.
Currently, VA has little authority to deter such persons from
unreasonably breaching contracts involving SAH funds and has no overt
statutory authority to recoup such funds. VA's LGY service has
encountered several cases where grant funds were misused by SAH
participants. For example, in one case a contractor received a
disbursement of SAH funds but failed to pay his suppliers, which
resulted in a supplier's lien against a Veteran's home and raised the
threat of a foreclosure. In another case, a Veteran decided that he no
longer wanted to purchase a yet-to-be fully constructed adapted home,
after closing the purchase contract and commencement of construction.
In that case, approximately $30,000 had been disbursed from escrow to
the builder. The builder had expended some portion of those funds
during construction, before the Veteran breached the contract.
The Veterans Benefit Administration's education programs have a
clear statutory authorization under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3685 to collect
overpayments made in such programs. Section 3685 provides that whenever
the Secretary finds that an overpayment has been made to a Veteran,
eligible person, or educational institution, that such overpayment
shall constitute a liability to the United States and may be recovered
in the same manner as any debt owed to the United States. This bill
would provide similar statutory authorization for the SAH program and
would enable VA to recoup funds that may otherwise be non-recoverable
program costs.
The bill does pose a few issues from a technical perspective. Under
proposed section 2102(f)(1), the Secretary's authority to find that an
overpayment has been made would be limited to cases involving a breach
of contract or administrative error. There could be cases where LGY
might seek to recover misappropriated SAH funds where a breach of
contract might not have occurred in a strict legal sense. For example,
unbeknownst to VA or a Veteran, an SAH builder might purchase building
supplies from a supplier on credit. The supplier might attempt to
attach a lien to the Veteran's home until the builder repays the supply
debt in full, raising the danger of foreclosure. In such a case, the
builder would not necessarily be in breach of his informal contract
with the supplier, yet the Veteran could be subjected to an elevated
foreclosure risk. Additionally, VA is not a party to contracts between
the Veteran and the entity that is implementing the SAH assistance,
i.e. selling, building, or adapting a home. In cases where VA sees
evidence that SAH funds are being misused, VA might not be in a
position to know whether a breach of contract has occurred in a strict
legal sense. Proposed subsection (f)(6) would mandate that the
Secretary prescribe in regulations what constitutes an overpayment. VA
suggests amending proposed section 2102(f)(1) to allow the Secretary
discretion to define ``overpayment'' as including cases beyond those
involving breach of contract and administrative error.
As drafted, proposed section 2102(f)(2)(A) would limit the
Secretary's authority to collect overpayments from, in relevant part,
an individual who applied for assistance under chapter 21, title 38,
U.S.C. However, under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2102B, implementation of certain
VR&E rehabilitation projects, initiated via applications submitted
under chapter 31, are provided as SAH assistance under chapter 21. VA
suggests an edit that would also allow the Secretary to collect
overpayments from individuals who applied for assistance under chapter
31, where such assistance is being furnished under the SAH program.
The bill, as presented, contained a question relating to proposed
section 2102(f)(2), namely, whether VA deemed it necessary to
explicitly list the persons and entities set forth by subsection
(f)(2). VA recommends that the bill specifically enumerates the
entities from which VA can collect an SAH overpayment, to avoid an
interpretation that such authority is limited to collection efforts
against Veterans and builders who misuse SAH funds. In addition to
adding the individuals who applied for assistance under chapter 31 as
discussed above, VA recommends amending proposed subsection (f)(2)(C)
to include builders, contractors, suppliers, tradespersons,
corporations, trusts, partnerships, or other persons related to
delivery of SAH assistance. The bill also contained a question asking
whether VA disburses SAH funds directly to third parties. As mentioned
above, in certain cases, VA has authority to disburse SAH funds into an
escrow account, managed by a third-party escrow agent. The escrow agent
could be, for example, an attorney or a financial institution. Escrowed
funds can be disbursed incrementally to Veterans, builders, sellers of
real property, or other stakeholders. VA recommends that the bill
retain the express authority for VA to collect overpayments from, for
example, attorneys, escrow agents, and financial institutions.
Proposed section 2102(f)(4) would provide that the Secretary may
waive recovery of any overpayment made to an individual who applied for
assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 21. VA recommends expanding the
waiver authority to cover all persons listed by subsection (f)(2),
including Veterans who initially applied for assistance under chapter
31. VA appreciates the opportunity to work with the Committee to
address any other technical issues with the draft bill.
Benefit savings associated with this bill are insignificant. No
administrative costs are associated with this bill.
(8) Unnumbered Bill - Authorize the Secretary to assist blind Veterans
who have not lost use of a leg in acquiring Specially Adapted Housing
(SAH)
The unnumbered bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2101(a)(2)(B)(ii)
to expand eligibility for SAH assistance under section 2101(a) to
certain Veterans whose service-connected disability is due to blindness
in both eyes, having only light perception. As mentioned above, SAH
assistance under section 2101(a) is most commonly used for making homes
wheelchair accessible. Assistance under section 2101(b) is generally
used to mitigate other mobility-related issues throughout homes.
Under current law, a Veteran can be eligible for section 2101(a)
assistance, in relevant part, provided that the Veteran is receiving
compensation under chapter 11, title 38, U.S.C., for a permanent and
total service-connected disability that is due to (i) blindness in both
eyes, having only light perception, and (ii) loss or loss of use of one
lower extremity, e.g., a leg. In contrast, a Veteran can be eligible
for section 2101(b) assistance, in relevant part, if the Veteran is
receiving such compensation for a disability that is due to blindness
in both eyes, having central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the
better eye with the use of a standard correcting lens.
If enacted, the bill would expand eligibility for section 2101(a)
SAH assistance to certain Veterans whose disability meets the first
criterion discussed above, i.e. blindness in both eyes, having only
light perception, but does not meet the second, i.e. loss or loss of
use of one lower extremity. In other words, a Veteran whose disability
is caused solely by blindness in both eyes, having only light
perception, could qualify for section 2101(a) SAH assistance, provided
that other statutory criteria are met.
VA does not object to the general purpose of the bill. Under
current law, a Veteran with blindness in both eyes, having only light
perception, but without loss of or loss of use of one lower extremity,
might be eligible for SAH assistance under section 2101(b) but might
not be eligible for assistance under section 2101(a). The current
aggregate dollar limit under section 2101(a) is $85,645, and the
current limit under section 2101(b) is $17,130. VA's data suggests that
certain Veterans who qualify for assistance under section 2101(b) but
not section 2101(a) are unable to adapt their homes to meet all the
needs caused by their service-connected disabilities. VA believes that
such Veterans would benefit from expanded access to section 2101(a)
grants. VA's review of section 2101(b) grant data for FYs 2016 through
2018 reveals that 155 individual Veterans would have met the expanded
criteria for section 2101(a) grants, as proposed by the bill. Of those
155 Veterans, 115 Veterans (74 percent) utilized section 2101(b) grants
for the first time. Of those 115 first-use Veterans, 79 Veterans
obtained grants in amounts that were within $1,000 of the aggregate
dollar limit for the relevant fiscal year.
As mentioned, the bill would allow certain Veterans with blindness
in both eyes, having only light perception, to qualify for SAH
assistance under the higher dollar limit of section 2101(a). This would
increase the amount of available assistance for such Veterans by
$68,515.
While VA supports increasing the aggregate limits for section
2101(b) grants to assist Veterans with severe blindness, VA is
concerned that expanding access under section 2101(a) might be
unnecessary. The bill, if enacted, would result in a nearly 500 percent
increase in the amount of available SAH assistance for certain Veterans
discussed above. VA's data evidences that many blind Veterans, i.e. 76
of the 155 cited above, were able to complete section 2101(b)
adaptation projects for less than the current aggregate limit of
$17,130. For those that could not, VA does not yet have data as to the
additional amount of funds such Veterans would have needed to fully
adapt their homes. However, VA believes that the average difference
would be far less than $68,515, i.e. the amount by which the bill would
expand section 2101(a) access for certain Veterans who are blind.
VA supports increasing the amount of SAH assistance available to
Veterans with blindness in both eyes, having only light perception, but
believes that expanding eligibility under section 2101(a)(2)(B)(ii) is
not necessary to accomplish that goal. Rather, VA believes increasing
the aggregate dollar limit under section 2101(b) would help ensure that
such Veterans are able to fully adapt their homes. VA also finds that
more data is necessary to determine the appropriate amount of such an
increase and welcomes the opportunity work with the Committee to
provide technical assistance relating to this bill.
Benefit costs associated with this bill are estimated to be $4.1
million in 2020, $23.0 million over five years, and $39.8 million over
ten years. No administrative costs are associated with this bill.
(9) H.R. 716 - Homeless Veterans Legal Services Act
H.R. 716 would require VA, subject to the availability of
appropriations for such purpose, to enter into partnerships with public
or private entities to provide general legal services to Veterans who
are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The bill further specifies
that VA is only authorized to fund a portion of the cost of legal
services.
VA supports this bill if amended, as this bill is similar to a
legislative proposal in VA's FY 2020 budget request. Each year, the
CHALENG survey consistently reveals that many of the top ten unmet
needs among homeless Veterans are legal needs. Veterans' lack of access
to legal representation to address outstanding warrants or fines, child
support matters, driver's license revocation, and other legal matters
continues to contribute to their risk of homelessness. As background,
we note that the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF)
Program currently allows grantees to enter into partnerships with legal
service providers to address legal needs that pose barriers to housing
stability. However, this is not a required service under the SSVF
regulations and is currently only provided to Veterans through 28
percent of grantees in the SSVF Program.
The consistency of legal issues arising in the CHALENG survey
strongly suggests a relationship between Veterans' unmet legal needs
and the risk of becoming homeless. The risk of homelessness posed by
eviction and foreclosure proceedings is obvious and direct, but other
unmet legal needs identified by CHALENG relate to Veterans'
homelessness, as well. The inability to obtain a driver's license may
render a Veteran unemployable, particularly in communities with few or
nonexistent public transportation options. If employed, a Veteran with
unpaid child support obligations may receive wages garnished at a rate
that threatens his or her ability to retain housing. Child support
arrearages can also lead to arrest warrants, and incarceration, even
for a brief period, has been shown to be the most powerful predictor of
homelessness among adult men. These legal problems can threaten
Veterans' mental and physical health, as well as their housing
stability, and it is not within VA clinicians' training, scope of
practice, or authority to address them directly. The ability to fund
the provision of legal services for Veterans would enable VA to take a
more holistic approach to serving Veterans who are homeless or at risk
for homelessness; however, we recommend technical edits to the bill
language.
Rather than requiring VA to enter into partnerships, H.R. 716
should authorize VA to provide grants to ensure the language reflects a
viable funding mechanism that VA could use to execute this new
authority; Government funding is typically distributed through grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements. Furthermore, VA recommends
removing the phrase ``a portion of'' from proposed 20 U.S.C. Sec.
2022A(a). This change would allow VA to fund a portion or the entirety
of the legal services provided under the partnership, thereby providing
VA greater flexibility to support these efforts. VA would like to work
with the Committee to make additional minor improvements to H.R. 716.
We estimate this bill would cost $750,000 in FY 2021, $779,250 in
FY 2022, $4.05 million over 5 years, and $8.96 million over 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. We would be pleased to respond
to questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Prepared Statement of Patrick Murray
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the
opportunity to present our views on these important pieces of
legislation.
H.R. 716, Homeless Veterans Legal Services Act
This legislation would require the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) to enter into partnerships with public and private entities that
provide legal services to homeless veterans. The VFW agrees with the
intent of this bill, but cannot offer its support at this time.
While the VFW recognizes that legal issues are often a significant
barrier to homeless reintegration and must be addressed, we are
concerned that some for-profit legal entities would view this program
as an opportunity to exploit the availability of government resources
in exchange for poor or inadequate services. For this reason, we
suggest that the language in this section be changed to allow VA to
enter into partnerships with only public or nonprofit private legal
entities that provide services to homeless veterans.
Furthermore, this initiative would be duplicative of other
federally funded programs. The AmeriCorps Equal Justice Works program,
funded by the Corporation for National and Community Service, provides
legal services to low-income and homeless veterans across the United
States. Equal Justice Works has partnered with numerous nonprofit
organizations and educational institutions that provide these legal
services. The VFW urges Congress to increase funding for AmeriCorps
legal services programs that specifically benefit homeless veterans,
and to require coordination between VA and AmeriCorps to improve
outreach to homeless veterans.
H.R. 1615, Verification Alignment and Service-Disabled Business
Adjustment Act
This legislation would transfer the responsibility of certifying
veteran-owned small businesses from VA to the Small Business
Administration (SBA). The VFW supports this legislation and has a
recommendation to improve it.
Currently, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB)
are subject to two different certification procedures, depending on the
agency with which they contract. To qualify for contracts with VA,
SDVOSB must first be verified by VA, which requires a rigorous
verification process that has placed onerous regulatory burdens on
SDVOSB. However, for the SBA contracts with all other Federal agencies,
SDVOSB are allowed to self-certify. Self-certification has permitted
businesses not owned by service-disabled veterans to fraudulently
receive Federal contracts, which reduces the number of contracts
available to bona fide SDVOSB. The Verification Alignment-Service-
Disabled Business Adjustment Act would require SBA to certify all
SDVOSB applications, which would alleviate regulatory burdens for
contracts with VA and help preserve SDVOSB preference for contracts
with all Federal agencies.
The verification of service-disabled veteran status by VA required
by this bill is unnecessary and could result in delay. It would require
VA to first verify an individual's status as a veteran or service-
disabled veteran before the SBA can certify a small business. The SBA
would then have access to such verifications in a system created by VA.
The creation of this system could require costly technology upgrades to
permit communication between these agencies. Furthermore, similar
existing inter-agency verification systems have proven unwieldy and
cause unreasonable delay for veterans seeking to use VA benefits.
Instead of requiring VA to verify an individual's veteran or service-
disabled veteran status, applicants seeking small business
certification should be permitted to provide SBA with a copy of their
Certificate of Release from Active Duty (DD Form 214) and/or VA
Benefits Award Summary letter.
H.R. 2924, Housing for Women Veterans Act
The VFW supports reauthorizing the Supportive Services for Veteran
Families Grant Program (SSVF). The SSVF program is an incredibly
valuable tool in helping veterans get off the streets and stay off the
streets. Providing these services is an important way to make sure
veterans are afforded the opportunity to maintain a healthy and
productive life after service. Reauthorizing the SSVF through 2022 is a
common-sense proposal that the VFW wholeheartedly endorses.
H.R. 2227, Gold Star Spouses and Spouses of Injured Servicemembers
Leasing Relief Expansion Act of 2019
The VFW supports H.R. 2227 to improve benefits for spouses of
injured and fallen servicemembers. This bill would extend home and
automobile leasing protections in the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
to ensure spouses of servicemembers who are catastrophically injured or
killed in the line of duty are able to terminate their residential,
property, and automotive leases without penalty. This bill gives Gold
Star spouses and spouses of injured servicemembers the flexibility to
move and be with their family members, and reduces the financial burden
when a catastrophic event occurs.
H.R. 2618, Portable Certification of Spouses (PCS) Act of 2019
A consistent problem facing military spouses is the recertification
for occupational licenses, which can be a lengthy and expensive
process. Every two to three years military spouses move to different
states and have to be recertified. This has detrimental effects on
their promotions, 401Ks, and careers. More than 34 percent of military
spouses work in occupations that require state licenses in order to
practice. Of those, 56 percent are in health-related occupations, and
another 29 percent are in education. The VFW supports this proposal
which would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide a
guarantee of residency for registration of businesses, improve
occupational license portability for military spouses through
interstate compacts, and allow the Department of Defense (DoD) to use
Federal funds to assist states in generating new universal standards
for occupational licenses.
H.R. 561, Protecting Business Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2019
The VFW supports this legislation, which would place certain
restrictions on the use of subcontractors by veteran-owned small
businesses for procurement contracts with VA. This legislation would
merely create parity between veteran-owned small businesses and other
small businesses that enter into procurement contracts with the Federal
government.
Draft Bill to Amend the Period to Elect to Participate in Chapter 30
Benefits
The VFW supports this proposal to move back the timeline for
enrollment in the Montgomery GI Bill. The first few days of recruit
training is a chaotic period, and it is not the time to discuss the
specific differences between education benefits. According to the DoD,
approximately 80 percent of all new servicemembers paid into the
Montgomery GI Bill program in 2018. Of those servicemembers, only a
fraction utilize the benefit they pay into. The Forever GI Bill is
earned through time in service and does not require any money to be
paid out of pocket to receive this incredible benefit. While the
Montgomery GI Bill can be beneficial to some veterans, it requires a
$1,200 buy-in and in many cases is not nearly as robust a benefit as
the Forever GI Bill. Many VFW members have stated if they knew more
about the Montgomery GI Bill they may not have opted to pay $1,200 for
a program they would never use. This proposal would allow
servicemembers additional time to understand the nuances between the
two chapters of the GI Bill, and if they should opt in for both.
Draft Bill to Authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to Collect
Overpayments of Specially Adapted Housing Assistance
The VFW understands this proposal to allow for the collection of
overpayments made for the Specially Adapted Housing Assistance (SAH)
program, if overpayments are made due to breach of contract. The
government should be able to recoup the overpaid funds due to breach of
contract in the same manner as any other debt due to the United States.
However, we oppose the idea of collecting from veterans due to VA
administrative errors. If VA is responsible for the error, then
veterans should not be penalized for its mistakes.
Draft Bill to Increase the Housing Stipend for Online Students
The VFW supports the intent of this bill and does not think online
students should receive only half of the Basic Allowance for Housing
(BAH) stipend. However, while we agree with the problem, we do not
think this is the best solution. Once the final changes for the Forever
GI Bill are implemented, housing stipends will be calculated based on
the facility codes for each institution. This proposal could lead to
institutions with higher BAH rates targeting military members,
veterans, and their families with the offer of more money rather than
better instruction. Predatory institutions could set up locations in
major cities with the intent of continuing deceptive practices with an
offer of higher housing stipends.
We agree that online students only receiving half the housing
stipend is arbitrary and unfair, and we have a suggested alternative.
The VFW proposes an option to raise the rates for online students that
would be a standard rate based on the national average BAH. This would
provide a more standardized rate, and work toward parity for all
student veterans.
Draft Bill, GI Bill Access to Career Credentials Act
The VFW supports expanding eligibility of the GI Bill for licensing
and credential courses. Tests and preparatory courses to attain certain
licenses or credits should be covered under GI Bill eligibility just
the same as other vocational or specialty courses.
Draft Bill to Grant Authority of State Approving Agencies to Carry Out
Outreach Activities
The VFW supports this proposal to grant the State Approving
Agencies (SAA) authority to conduct outreach. The SAAs play a vital
role in ensuring compliance and integrity for institutions providing
education and instruction to veterans. The SAAs conduct quality checks
of programs for usage of veteran benefits, and stay vigilant that
institutions continue to provide quality instruction.
Outreach by the SAAs is incredibly important as it informs
institutions about the eligibility of VA beneficiaries to attend their
programs. We feel SAAs should be able to conduct outreach and bill VA
for these efforts. However, while we support allowing SAAs to conduct
outreach, we do not feel this goes far enough. We feel there should be
a dedicated effort within VA and the SAAs to make this a priority, so
individual SAAs can still perform their day-to-day tasks and build up a
standing office to conduct outreach and be the liaison between VA and
the SAAs.
Draft Bill to Require Educational Institutions to Abide by Principles
of Excellence
The VFW supports many provisions within the Principles of
Excellence, however, we cannot support this bill as written. This
proposal would force underperforming schools to increase their support
of student veterans and improve their curriculums. It would also put
restrictions on recruiting and false advertising toward servicemembers,
veterans, and their families. The VFW encourages every single
institution to adopt the Principles of Excellence, but making it a
requirement could have unintended consequences. Major institutions that
have not adopted these principles, such as Harvard University,
University of Florida, Louisiana State University, and others, would
lose the ability to enroll GI Bill beneficiaries. The thousands of
students enrolled at these high-quality institutions would suddenly not
be able to use their benefits to attend school. The Principles of
Excellence is something schools should strive toward, but not be
mandated.
Draft Bill to Require Certain Educational Institutions Have Letters of
Credit
The VFW supports requiring educational institutions facing
financial instability to provide letters of credit for Title 38
students. In the past few years, multiple schools attended by thousands
of student veterans closed due to financial instability. Institutions
deemed financially instable shall provide letters of credit for Title
4, but not Title 38. The VFW believes there should be parity for
students attending institutions at risk of closure. It should not be
the sole job of VA and the tax payers to make whole students who were
failed by their institutions. The burden should also be placed upon the
institution itself.
Draft Bill to Revise Federal Revenue Limits for Proprietary For-Profit
Institutions
The VFW supports this proposal to set limits on Federal funds
allowed to be received by for-profit institutions. The 90/10 loophole
has existed for years, and the VFW believes closing this loophole is a
great step in the right direction to help protect servicemembers,
veterans, and their families. Currently, schools accepting Title 4 Pell
Grants have to abide by the 90/10 ratio of funding from students using
Federal funds versus students paying on their own. This bill would
close the 90/10 loophole by defining Federal funds to include payments
from the GI Bill. The VFW believes this is a straight forward change
that aligns all Federal funding for the purpose of the 90/10 ratio.
Draft Bill, Student Veteran Empowerment Act of 2019
The VFW supports sections 2, 4, and 5 of this draft bill, but
cannot support section 3.
Section 2 would provide restoration of any months of eligibility
lost at an institution that closed if the student cannot transfer
credits to another school. A similar measure was included in the
Forever GI Bill, but it covered only a certain time period and does not
cover current and future students. The VFW supports making this a
permanent protection for all student veterans and their families who
face school closures.
Section 3 would mandate schools adhere to the Principles of
Excellence, and we do not support making that a requirement. At a
minimum, we would suggest allowing some lead time for schools to come
into compliance, rather than making this requirement effective as of
the date of enactment.
Section 4 would require additional oversight of educational
institutions placed on heightened cash monitoring status. Requiring the
SAAs to perform risk-based investigations would help determine the
potential vulnerabilities that student veterans may face while
attending these institutions. The VFW thinks this is a good addition to
the roles and responsibilities performed by the SAAs, and we support
this proposal.
Section 5 would require monthly verification of enrollment for
students using Chapter 38 benefits. This would prevent overpayments of
BAH and hopefully limit the amount of debt incurred by student
veterans. The VFW supports this section of this proposal.
Draft Bill, VA Economic Hardship Report Act
The VFW supports this legislation to require VA to report on
economic factors that contribute to veteran suicides. We all must do
what is necessary to save the 20 veterans who die by suicide every day.
Economic insecurity is a leading cause of suicide among servicemembers
and veterans. It is important to review and address such economic
factors.
Draft Bill, Forever GI Bill Class Evaluation Act
The VFW supports this proposal to prevent overpayments to schools.
Currently, if the school receives payment and a student drops classes,
the student is responsible for making sure VA recoups the extra tuition
and fees. This proposal would help mitigate that problem by
establishing payment schedules and verification dates, and cease
payments to students who withdraw.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, the VFW thanks
you and the Ranking Member for the opportunity to testify on these
important issues before this Subcommittee. I am prepared to take any
questions you or the Subcommittee members may have.
Prepared Statement of John J. Kamin
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and distinguished members
of the Committee, on behalf of our National Commander, Brett P. Reistad
and our nearly 2 million members, we thank you for inviting The
American Legion to testify today.
The American Legion is directed by millions of active Legionnaires
who dedicate their time and resources to the continued service of
veterans and their families. As a resolution-based organization, our
positions are guided by nearly 100 years of advocacy and resolutions
that originate at the grassroots level of our organization. Every time
The American Legion testifies, we offer a direct voice from the veteran
community to congress.
H.R. 561 - ``Protecting Business Opportunities for Veterans Act of
2017"
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the oversight of
contracts awarded by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to small
business concerns owned and controlled by veterans, and for other
purposes.
When a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) or
Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) is awarded a contract under VA's
Vets First Program, they are required to perform a certain percentage
of the work. However, there is a longstanding problem of improper
``pass-throughs'' in the program where businesses profit from the
contracts while performing little or no because they are subcontracting
the work to other companies to complete.
H.R. 561 would require participants in the Vets First Program to
certify that they are performing the required percentage of work and
directs VA to refer suspected violators to the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) for investigation. Making this a more explicit part of
OIG's mission should encourage them to devote more resources to it.
This is crucial in light of the Supreme Court decision in Kingdomware
because essentially every VA small business contract is now set aside
for VOSBs/SDVOSBs.
H.R. 561 also directs the VA Secretary to consider whether existing
administrative and criminal penalties for fraudulent representation
would apply in each case. By protecting VOSBs and SDVOSBs that play by
the rules from bad actors that are abusing the system, this bill would
improve opportunities for our Nation's veterans. Resolution No. 21:
Support Reasonable Set-Aside of Federal Procurements and Contracts for
Businesses Owned and Operated by Veterans,\1\ supports legislation that
will provide assistance to all veterans, including disabled veterans
and members of Reserve Components of the United States military to
ensure equal opportunity for veterans to start or grow a small
business, including establishing numerical goals for all veterans to
compete in government procurement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/9916
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 561 as currently written.
H.R. 716 - ``Homeless Veterans Legal Services Act''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to enter into partnerships with public and private
entities to provide legal services to homeless veterans and veterans at
risk of homelessness.
The causes of homelessness can be grouped into three categories:
health issues, lack of affordable housing, and economic hardships. The
complexity of issues affecting homeless veterans requires a variety of
expertise. A full continuum of care - housing, employment training and
placement, healthcare, substance abuse treatment, and follow-up case
management - depends on many organizations working together to provide
services and adequate funding. This diverse network of providers is
necessary to address the complicated multifaceted issues associated
with homelessness.
Legal issues are often symptomatic of homelessness and the fees
associated with them add to an already complicated economic situation
for many of our veterans. A variety of relatively routine legal issues
can often compound to form seemingly insurmountable reentry obstacles
to housing or reemployment.
This legislation, if enacted, would direct the Secretary of the VA
to enter into partnerships with entities that provide legal services to
veterans. Therefore, extending the network of providers that ensure
legal services are made available to this vulnerable veteran
population.
The American Legion, through resolution, supports this
comprehensive approach to combating veteran homelessness. The American
Legion Resolution No. 324: Support Funding for Homeless Veterans, calls
for the continued support of public and private sector agencies and
organizations that aid homeless veterans and their families.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/5640
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 716 as currently written.
H.R. 1615 - ``Verification Alignment and Service-disabled Business
Adjustment Act'' or the ``VA-SBA Act''
To transfer the responsibility of verifying small business concerns
owned and controlled by veterans or service-disabled veterans to the
Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
included Sec. 1832 and Sec. 1833, mandating the Federal government
adopt streamlined definitions for a service-disabled veteran owned
small business (SDVOSB) along with mandating the Small Business
Administration (SBA) take regulatory responsibility for matters of
certification. Further, President Trump's Administration also signaled
the desire to streamline all certification processes by providing a
``one-stop shop'' within SBA.\3\ The president's proposal follows The
House Small Business Committee's work to reconcile the language in 38
CFR Sec. 74 and 13 CFR Sec. 125 to protect the integrity of the SDVOSB
program. The regulations are aligned, but the processes for veteran
small business certification differ between the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) and the rest of the agencies across the Federal
government. This is creating confusion for contracting officers and
veteran business owners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform
Plan and Reorganization Recommendations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the streamlining of the regulatory definition and standards
for SDVOSBs, The American Legion agrees that SBA should absorb the
respective responsibilities of the VA's CVE. The American Legion
Resolution No. 155: Support Verification Improvements for Veterans'
Business, supports legislation that calls for SBA to assume
responsibilities for the verification of service-disabled veteran-owned
businesses and veteran-owned small businesses, based on the agency's
expertise.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/5497
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion believes Congress should finish the work that
it began when Congress moved towards a single set of SDVOSB definitions
by consolidating the accrediting process to a singular-certifying-
agency and end the current form of self-certification at SBA. Lastly,
The American Legion believes SBA already possesses the capabilities to
have businesses apply for certification through certify.sba.gov. The
American Legion calls on Congress to examine using SBA's existing
system rather than developing a new system at the cost of millions of
dollars to the taxpayer.
Finally, in 2017, SBA wrote in the Federal Register, ``In response
to the NDAA 2017 changes, SBA is proposing to amend the definitions in
Sec. 125.11 by incorporating language from VA's regulations and also
from SBA's 8(a) Business Development (BD) program regulations.''
Currently, the SDVOSB program is a set-aside program and not a BD
program. In comparison, 8(a) is a business development program where
SBA assists small businesses by ensuring they maintain program
eligibility. Comparatively, Vets First takes the form of a
certification program, where CVE's role is the gatekeeper, determining
who is eligible. The two programs may serve similar purposes, but they
have different goals. The alignment of the regulations now hold the
veteran small business set-aside program to the same standards as the
BD programs. As such, veteran small businesses will be subject to that
same standard and rigor, but receive none of the benefits and
assistance of the BD programs. The American Legion believes that if the
standards are the same across the board, then SDVOSBs should receive
the same type of assistance as the BD programs. The incorporation of BD
elements into the SDVOSB programs is the logical next step and is
consistent with regulation alignment with 8(a) language and moving
verification to SBA.
The American Legion supports H.R. 1615 as currently written.
H.R. 2227- ``Gold Star Spouses and Spouses of Injured Servicemembers
Leasing Relief Expansion Act of 2019"
To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to authorize spouses
of servicemembers who incur a catastrophic injury or illness or die
while in military service to terminate leases of premises and motor
vehicles, and for other purposes.
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) established financial
and legal protections for active-duty servicemembers, including
National Guard and reserve members, and their families. It covers a
wide range of issues including rental agreements, security deposits,
prepaid rent, evictions, installment contracts, credit card interest
rates, mortgage interest rates, mortgage foreclosures, civil judicial
proceedings, automobile leases, life insurance, health insurance and
income tax payments. SCRA was intended to allow servicemembers to
postpone or suspend financial or civil obligations to prevent them from
being taken advantage of while on active duty or deployment. However,
SCRA failed to extend these protections to include the family of the
servicemembers should the military member pass away or be severely
injured in the line of duty. This would leave these families bound to
leases or other agreements made before the loss of their loved ones.
The American Legion strives to ensure that servicemembers and their
families receive the proper care they deserve, especially when the
military member has made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. H.R.
2227, The Gold Star Spouses and Spouses of Injured Servicemembers
Leasing Relief Expansion Act of 2019, would authorize these Gold Star
families to terminate leases and other agreements by extending these
financial and legal protections to these families, which they
previously had under SCRA while the servicemember was still alive. The
American Legion Resolution No. 342: Support and Strengthen the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act urges Congress to amend the SCRA to
include protections for members of the Armed Forces and their
families.\5\ The Gold Star Spouses and Spouses of Injured
Servicemembers Leasing Relief Expansion Act of 2019 is in line with
this resolution and the American Legion supports this legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/5660
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 2227 as currently written.
H.R. 2924 - ``Housing for Women Veterans Act''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to reauthorize the
Supportive Services for Veteran Families Grant Program, and for other
purposes.
Since its inception in 2012, the Supportive Services for Veteran
Families (SSVF) Program has played an instrumental role in assisting
veterans and their families in exiting or avoiding homelessness.
Through the granting of funds, the SSVF ensures that private non-profit
organizations that provide supportive housing services to low-income
veterans are properly resourced. From FY 2012 to FY 2017, the program
assisted 419,338 homeless veterans and at-risk veteran families.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.va.gov/homeless/ssvf/docs/SSVF--FY2017--
AnnualReport--508.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill, if enacted into law, would reauthorize the SSVF Grant
Program for three years, adding an additional 20,000,000 to 2019 levels
that is specifically intended for grants to organizations that focus on
assisting women veterans and their families. Additionally, the bill
directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to complete a gap analysis of
programs that are designed to provide assistance to women veterans who
are homeless and identify potential areas in where these programs are
not having their intended effect.
The American Legion, through resolution, has been a firm supporter
of the SSVF Program. The American Legion Resolution No. 340: Support
Permanent Authorization for the Supportive Services for Veteran
Families program calls on Congress to not only reauthorize the program,
but to do so permanently.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/5658
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to recent studies, among homeless veterans, ``9% of men
and 30% of women had children in custody.''\8\ As a result, it is
essential that efforts are made to ensure that the proper resources
continue to be allocated to veterans and their families who are
homeless, or at-risk of being homeless. Additionally, as the percentage
of women veterans grow, it is imperative that studies, like the one
being directed in H.R. 2924, are done to ensure that the needs of these
veterans are being met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25975888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 2924 as currently written.
H.R. 2934 - ``GI Bill Access to Career Credentials Act''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the use of
educational assistance under chapter 33 of that title to pay for
preparatory courses for professional licenses and certifications, and
for other purposes.
Currently, the GI Bill can reimburse the costs of fees associated
with licensing and certification exams that are required to enter into,
maintain, or advance in a given vocation or profession (e.g., State bar
exams, medical board exams, electrician exams, COMPTIA certifications,
etc.). However, the GI Bill cannot reimburse the cost of preparatory
courses to take such exams, even though the GI Bill reimburses fees for
both preparatory courses and reimbursement of tests admissions exams
(e.g., SAT, ACT, GRE, LSAT, etc.).
Through Resolution No. 338: Support Licensure and Certification of
Servicemembers, Veterans and Spouses, The American Legion supports any
effort to lower the credentialing and licensing barriers between
military and civilian sectors.\9\ However we cannot support this bill
due to its lack of articulated training standards. While the
legislation would build a new section for preparatory courses for
licensure, certification, or national tests (Sec. 3315B), it lacks any
definitions for approved training providers. This lack of quality
control will invite bad actors to exploit the provision by marketing
worthless preparatory courses that leave veterans ill equipped for
licensing exams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12203/5656/
2016N338.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion opposes H.R. 2934, and encourages Committee
review of the Department of Defense Voluntary Education training
provider requirements articulated in 10 U.S.C Sec. 2006a for guidance
on established quality control standards.
The American Legion opposes H.R. 2934.
Draft Legislation - ``Legal Services for Homeless Veterans Act''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to make grants to entities that provide legal services
for homeless veterans and veterans at risk for homelessness.
Homeless veterans, and those at risk of being homeless, often lack
the most basic essentials: safe and affordable housing, healthcare,
subsistence income, and protection from exploitation or violence. Many
of their problems have legal dimensions and can be alleviated or
resolved with the help of a lawyer.
In 2009, the VA instituted the Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO)
Program to reduce and prevent criminal justice recidivism and
homelessness among justice involved veterans. As a part of this
program, VJO specialists ``provide direct outreach, assessment and case
management for justice-involved Veterans in local courts and jails and
liaison with local justice system partners.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.va.gov/homeless/vjo.asp#contact
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent studies have indicated that veterans who accessed free legal
services at VA facilities showed improvements in housing status and
community integration.\11\ Some of the most common legal issues that
were addressed on behalf of the 950 veterans that participated in the
study included housing and VA benefits issues. Providing veterans with
a pathway to rectify problems that restrict access to housing and VA
benefits is crucial to ensuring that they are on a sustainable
trajectory to improved housing conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0759
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This legislation, if enacted, directs the Secretary of the Veterans
Affairs to make grants to public or non-profit entities that provides
legal services to homeless veterans or those at risk of being homeless.
38 U.S.C. Sec. 2022 (c) sets the condition for the establishment of
cooperative outreach related partnerships with entities outside of the
VA as a part of the Secretary's outreach plan for homeless veterans.
The aforementioned legislation identifies legal services as a key
component of cooperative outreach, while this draft legislation works
to expand the availability of those services.
The American Legion Resolution No. 324: Support Funding for
Homeless Veterans calls on Congress to support ``efforts of public and
private sector agencies and organizations with the resources necessary
to aid homeless veterans and their families.''\12\ Providing grants to
organizations that provide legal services to justice involved veterans
is in keeping with this intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/5640
The American Legion supports this draft legislation as currently
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
written.
Draft Legislation
To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to collect
overpayments of specially adapted housing assistance.
The Department of Veterans Affairs provides grants to
servicemembers and veterans with certain permanent and total service-
connected disabilities to help purchase, construct, or modify homes to
accommodate their disabilities. One of these grants is the Specially
Adapted Housing Grant which was established for veterans who have a
service-connected disability such as a loss, or loss the use of, both
legs or the loss of one leg combined with other additional
disabilities. In several instances, the Special Adaptive Housing
payment program has overpaid veterans who are enrolled in the program.
These errors have led to inefficiency in the program and diverted
resources which could be otherwise used for additional recipients.
The American Legion supports good accountability and stewardship of
American tax dollars and resources. The American Legion also desires a
system that increases efficiency and accountability while providing
timely and quality benefits to all veterans. However, the American
Legion does not support policies that cause financial burdens on
veterans and their families. This draft legislation would authorize the
government to recoup excess payments made to veterans, spouses,
contractors, and builders participating in the Special Adaptive Housing
program. It would also require the Secretary of VA to provide a notice
to the veteran regarding the overpayments and provide a reasonable
opportunity for the person in question to remedy the issue. The
American Legion Resolution No. 342: Automatic Waiver for Over-Payment
of $300 or Less supports legislation to allow the Department of
Veterans Affairs to grant an automatic waiver for those overpayments of
$300 or less if the claimant requests one and there is no obvious
indication of fraud or misrepresentation.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/9865
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this draft legislation with changes.
The American Legion supports the automatic recoupment of overpayments
made of $300 or less. However, the recoupment of any overpayment to a
veteran approved of the Special Adapted Housing should not cause
additional financial burden on a veteran if the veteran in question
received an overpayment they could not prevent. Therefore, veterans
should be provided a reasonable plan to re-pay the overpayment. In
addition, they should be notified of their rights to an administrative
hearing.
The American Legion supports this draft legislation with the
recommended changes.
Draft Legislation
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require proprietary for-
profit educational institutions to comply with Federal revenue limits
to participate in educational assistance programs of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
The American Legion has grown increasingly concerned over for-
profit institutions disproportionately recruiting veterans, and recent
numbers from the National Student Clearinghouse have put these numbers
in context. Estimated national enrollment at 4-year institutions by
sector now shows that only 6% of all American students are attending
for-profit institutions, while the VA estimates that for-profit Post-9/
11 GI Bill enrollment is over triple this amount, with proprietary
institutions accounting for 18.8 percent of all GI Bill
beneficiaries.\14\ The primary explanation for this disparity is that
for-profits are incentivized to target veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/
CurrentTermEnrollmentReport-Spring-2019.pdf pg. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under current law, the percentage of revenue that for-profit
schools can receive from Federal financial aid is capped at 90%. The
intent was to ensure that for-profits meet a market interest and are
not entirely reliant on Federal funding, however, the Post-9/11 GI Bill
has provided them a lucrative loophole. Since GI Bill benefits are a
Title 38 benefit, they are counted on the ``10-side'' of the 90/10
calculation. This has been defined as the ``90/10 Loophole'', allowing
schools to collect Federal funds classified as private revenue.
The American Legion, through Resolution No. 78: Support Greater GI
Bill Outcomes by Closing 90-10 Loophole, has expressed support for
excluding Department of Defense and VA funds from the 90/10 calculation
in order to ensure better quality and student outcomes.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/6929
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill provides a common sense solution to this is by
calculating Title 38 benefits alongside Title IV student aid in order
to eliminate the incentive for for-profit institutions to aggressively
target veterans for enrollment.
The American Legion supports this draft legislation as currently
written.
Draft Legislation - ``Student Veteran Empowerment Act''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain improvements
in the educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes.
Section 2. Charge to Entitlement to Educational Assistance for
Individuals who do not Transfer Credits from Certain Disapproved
Programs of Education
When a school closes, non-veteran students have Federal protections
to support them. Affected students with Federal student loans have the
ability to discharge their loans. Students who received Pell Grants can
have their eligibility periods reset for the time spent at a closed
institution. Through Resolution No. 21: Education Benefit Forgiveness
and Relief for Displaced Student-Veterans, the American Legion strongly
believes that student veterans should be afforded the same protections
as their non-veteran counterparts.
While the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Education Assistance Act of
2017 provided relief to over 6,000 student veterans who were attending
ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges when they abruptly shut down their
campuses, the legislation limited relief to only schools that closed
between 2015 and 2017. This section would provide benefits
reinstatement to all veterans who may be affected by abrupt school
closures and VA program disapproval.
The American Legion supports this section.
Section 3. Additional Requirements for Approval of Educational
Institutions for Purposes of the Educational Assistance Programs of the
Department of Veterans Affairs
This section would mandate that all schools agree to abide by the
Principles of Excellence (POE) enumerated by Executive Order 13607,
issued by President Obama in 2012 and still in effect. Like the
Discussion Draft requiring educational institutions abide by POE, this
section would mandate as a condition of approval institutions meet its
six criteria.
While the American Legion agrees that the POE needs to be improved
to ensure adequate compliance, the immediate affect or POE requirements
for all institutions remain concerning. POE has not been difficult for
poor-performing schools to sign onto; indeed Argosy University, one of
the most recent for-profit school closures was a Principles of
Excellence school up until the day its doors shut. While the American
Legion advocates for all schools to sign onto POE, it questions whether
strong-arming all education institutions into signing is the most
effective approach.
Resolution No. 318: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and
Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Education\16\
resolves that The American Legion support legislation that improves
education benefits so servicemembers, veterans, and their families can
maximize its usage. The risk that an immediate requirement for all
schools to sign onto POE will result in program withdrawals is not one
that student veterans should have to bear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12203/5635/
2016N318.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion does not support this section.
Section 4. Oversight of Educational Institutions Placed on
Heightened Cash Monitoring Status by Secretary of Education
This section would mandate that if the Department of Education
places an institution on heightened cash monitoring (HCM) status, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall provide notice to the corresponding
State Approving Agency (SAA) for the purpose of conducting a risk-based
oversight visit to the educational institution.
These risk-based visits should not be construed as forensic
accounting to supplement Department of Education HCM protocols. Rather
the purpose is to leverage SAA expertise to determine if any academic
improprieties may be present at the institutions under review.
Resolution No. 304: Support Accountability for Institutions of
Higher Learning articulates the need for State Approving Agencies to
conduct substantive oversight on institutions of higher learning, and
The American Legion applauds this common-sense solution to build inter-
department coordination between the Department of Education and the
Department of Veterans Affairs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12203/5619/
2016N304.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this section.
Section 5. Verification of Enrollment for Purposes of Receipt of
Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Benefits
This section would mandate that each student veteran or dependent
enrolled in the Post-9/11 GI Bill be required to submit to VA monthly
verification of their enrollment status for purposes of ensuring
accurate benefit processing.
Like the Forever GI Bill Processing Act, this section is designed
to lower the potential for education overpayments. Currently, student
veterans are beholden to school certifying officials to send their
enrollment information to VA on time and accurately. However if the
certifying official submits incorrect information overstating credit
hours, it will be the veteran who VA targets for overpayment debt
collection.
By requiring students to verify their enrollment every month, VA
can have close to real-time information on student enrollment status,
cutting out the certifying official from monthly reviews and affording
them more time for initial certificate of eligibility processing.
While this may be an inconvenience for student veterans, it is not
without precedent; to this day the Montgomery GI Bill still requires
monthly verification through its Web Automated Verification of
Enrollment (WAVE) system.\18\ It is no surprise that MGIB has no
comparable issues with overpayments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ https://gibill.custhelp.va.gov/app/answers/detail/a--id/7//
how-do-i-verify-my-enrollment%3F
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through Resolution No. 318: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember
and Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Education,
The American Legion supports legislation to improve the GI Bill so
servicemembers, veterans and their families can maximize its usage.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12203/5635/
2016N318.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this section.
Draft Legislation
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize State approving
agencies to carry out outreach activities.
State Approving Agencies (SAAs) were established to ensure veterans
and servicemembers have access to a range of high-quality education and
training program options while utilizing their GI Bill benefits. The
American Legion has championed greater funding for SAAs for many years
through American Legion Resolution No. 304: Support Accountability for
Institutions of Higher Learning, and was proud to insist on funding
increases for them in the Forever GI Bill.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12203/5619/
2016N304.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This draft legislation would amend existing statute to allow SAAs
to use funds that are already appropriated to conduct outreach to
prospective students, schools and businesses to raise awareness of the
benefits of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, with special attention paid to its
underutilized apprenticeship and on-the-job-training (OJT) portions.
Since 2015, the National Association of State Approving Agencies
reports that the number of SAA outreach actions has fallen from 48,075
to only 5,275 in 2018.\21\ This drop corresponds with the VA
notifications to SAAs throughout 2015 that clarified outreach was not
in statute, and that activities such as visits to military bases and
hiring fairs could not be billed. While outreach for GI Bill
apprenticeship and OJT programs is commendable, The American Legion is
concerned that without additional increases in funding this outreach
will be at the expense of potential risk-based program reviews and SAA
management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ http://nasaa-vetseducation.com/getattachment/Home/NASAA-2018-
Annual-Report.pdf.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nuance of these concerns is expressed succinctly in Resolution
No. 304: Support Accountability for Institutions of higher Learning,
which resolves to ``support legislation to provide additional resources
and increased funding for state approving agencies, ensuring
continuation of its primary responsibility with focus in reviewing,
evaluating, and approving quality programs of education and training,
while providing oversight to institutions of higher learning.''\22\
With the emphasized portions in mind, The American Legion cannot
support a bill that establishes outreach authority for SAAs due to the
risks it may pose to diverting energy from their established primary
responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12203/5619/
2016N304.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion opposes this draft legislation.
Draft Legislation
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the time period
under which an election must be made for entitlement to educational
assistance under the All-Volunteer Educational Assistance Program of
Department of Veterans Affairs.
While the Post-9/11 GI Bill is automatically earned over the course
of active duty service, new recruits are still provided the option to
establish monthly payments to gain eligibility for the legacy
Montgomery GI Bill. Despite the Montgomery GI Bill being significantly
less generous than the Post 9/11 GI Bill, information from the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau in 2017 revealed that 70% of new Army
recruits were opting into the Montgomery GI Bill; and paying $1,200 for
the privilege\23\. Currently, recruits are making the decision over the
course of initial entry training (IET) with little to no counseling.
The base salary for a recruit is only $20,170, and opting into the
Montgomery Bill may not be in their best financial interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/what-does-coast-
guard-know-about-gi-bill-other-services-do-not/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This draft legislation would forego the decision to opt in or out
of the Montgomery GI Bill until 180 days after IET, providing our
servicemembers ample time to make informed decisions on their education
benefit options. American Legion Resolution No. 335: Support Major
Enhancements for the Montgomery GI Bill acknowledges that the current
structure and management of the Montgomery GI Bill causes
administrative confusion and inequitable allocation of benefits, with
the inability of recruits to opt out being the latest example.\24\ This
bill provides a common sense solution to improving the Montgomery GI
Bill and the American Legion supports the proposed legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/5652
The American Legion supports this draft legislation as currently
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
written.
Draft Legislation
To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the monthly
housing stipend under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program for
individuals who pursue programs of education solely through distance
learning on more than a half-time basis.
While the Post-9/11 GI Bill has undergone numerous improvements to
meet the educational demands of our modern armed forces, it has yet to
take into account the proliferation of online learning. While in person
training is awarded with a basic housing allowance consistent with
localized housing rates, online learning is currently set at $849.50,
regardless of locale.
Despite the education landscape shifting into more online learning,
this reduction in BAH clearly incentivizes in-person learning. Many
student veterans with family and job commitments do not have the option
to attend classes in person, and should not be penalized for fulfilling
their family and work obligations. As long as the veterans are meeting
their school's requirements for full-time learning, the VA must honor
this commitment with a full-time basic allowance for housing.
This bill would remedy this inconsistency by striking the entirety
of clause (iii) of 3313(c)(1)(B), which articulates the half-time
payment rate for online learning, thereby reverting online payments to
the same standards established for in-person learning.
Resolution No. 318: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and
Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Education
resolves that The American Legion support legislative proposals that
improve the Post-9/11 GI Bill so servicemembers, veterans and their
families can maximize its usage.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ https://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12203/5635/
2016N318.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this Draft Bill.
Draft Legislation - ``Forever GI Bill Class Evaluation''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a requirement
relating to the timing of the payment of educational assistance under
the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
A landmark 2015 GAO Report found that out of $10.8 billion in Post-
9/11 GI Bill Benefits dispersed to 800,000 recipients in 2014, over
$416 million was identified in overpayments affecting nearly 200,000
recipients.\26\ The VA and Congress have diligently worked to address
knowledge gaps in school certifying officials that may lead to improper
payments, including investing IT funds into training for school
certifying officials through the Forever GI Bill, but the potential for
continued overpayments is still active due to changes in the veteran's
course load between the start of the semester and the school's add/drop
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This legislation would mandate that schools wait to certify the
actual tuition and fee amounts until 14 days after the first day of the
quarter, semester or term; the rough estimate for school add/drop
dates. This has already been established as a best practice for most
institutions in what is called ``dual-certification''. Under this
practice schools initially pre-certify a veteran's enrollment for $0
before the term begins, which allows VA to start paying housing
benefits without delay. The school then recertifies the enrollment with
the actual tuition and fees amount after the period to add or drop
classes has ended.
The American Legion applauds this prescriptive approach to
codifying a best practice. In addition to guiding well intentioned
school certifying officials, it also stops the incentive for recruiters
at predatory institutions to enroll veterans for fake classes in order
for schools to receive maximum tuition payments.
American Legion Resolution No. 318: Ensuring the Quality of
Servicemember and Veteran Student's Education at Institutions of Higher
Education resolves support for any legislative proposal that improves
the GI Bill so that servicemembers, veterans and their families can
maximize its usage.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://archive.legion.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12203/5635/
2016N318.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this Draft Bill.
Draft Legislation
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require that certain
educational institutions have letters of credit as a condition of
approval for purposes of the educational assistance programs of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
Currently, section 498(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
requires institutions to submit financial statements to the Department
of Education when applying to start participation, to determine
compliance annually with the standards of financial responsibility, or
to continue participation after a change in ownership, in the various
Title IV programs. The common reason why an institution is required to
remit a letter of credit is for the Secretary of the Department of
Education to gauge the fiscal responsibility of the institutions that
receive Federal student aid.
This bill would provide the authority to the VA and state approving
agencies to disapprove courses of education at schools that fail to
provide letters of credit ensuring institutional financial
responsibility. The American Legion holds that the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs should be afforded the same authority
for Title 38 benefits. The American Legion Resolution No. 304: Support
Accountability for Institutions of Higher Learning supports legislation
which provides or improves oversight over institutions of higher
education to provide accountably and ensure quality services for
veterans and servicemembers.\28\ This draft legislation is in line with
this resolution and the American Legion supports this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/5619
The American Legion supports this draft legislation as currently
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
written.
Draft Legislation
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require that educational
institutions abide by Principles of Excellence as a condition of
approval for purposes of the educational assistance programs of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
In 2015, President Obama introduced the Principle of Excellence
through Executive Order 13607. This order established best-practice
criteria for schools to ensure that Federal military and veterans
educational benefits programs provide servicemembers, veterans,
spouses, and other family members with the information, support, and
protections they deserve. The educational institutions opting in agreed
to abide by the following guidelines:
Provide students with a personalized form covering the
total cost of an education program.
Provide educational plans for all military and Veteran
education beneficiaries.
End fraudulent and aggressive recruiting techniques and
misrepresentations.
Accommodate servicemembers and reservists absent due to
service requirements.
Designate a point of contact to provide academic and
financial advice.
Ensure accreditation of all new programs prior to
enrolling students.
Align institutional refund policies with those under
Title IV, which governs the administration of Federal student financial
aid programs.
This threshold has not been hard to meet for schools; currently 58%
of all institutions have agreed to it.
This draft legislation would vest disapproval of education programs
to State Approving Agencies for institutions that have not agreed to
abide by the Principles of Excellence. The American Legion is
encouraged by the adaptation of the Principles of Excellence, however
concerns over adaptation for the remaining 42% of schools preclude our
endorsement of these principles serving as a baseline standard for
Post-9/11 GI Bill approval. According to the VA's GI Bill comparison
tool, 116,782 students attend non-POE schools.\29\ The American Legion
Resolution No. 318: Ensuring the Quality of Servicemember and Veteran
Student's Education at Institutions of Higher Education supports
legislation or administrative proposals that allows servicemembers,
veterans, and their families to maximize the usage of their well-earned
educational benefits.\30\ They should not bear the punishment for
attending schools that have not committed to Principles of Excellence.
Therefore, the American Legion does not support this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://www.va.gov/gi-bill-comparison-tool/
\30\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/5635
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion does not support this draft legislation.
Draft Legislation - ``VA Economic Hardship Report Act''
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to study the link
between certain economic factors and veteran suicides.
Veteran suicide is a severe problem facing the United States today.
The latest Department of Veterans Affairs National Suicide Data Report
found that more than 6,000 veterans have died by suicide every year
from 2008 to 2016. In 2016, the suicide rate was 1.5 times greater for
veterans than non-veteran adults.\31\ The Defense Suicide Prevention
Office, has published a list of negative life events that increase the
risk of suicide. Factors listed include: loss of job, home, money,
self-esteem, personal security, being faced with a situation of
humiliation or failure, placement into a new and/or unfamiliar
environment. These factors are all applicable and may have a profound
effect of suicide ideation.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ https://www.legion.org/legislative/testimony/245512/tragic-
trends-suicide-prevention-among-veterans#--ftnref1
\32\ https://www.dspo.mil/About-Suicide/Risk-Factors/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion strives to ensure that our nation's veterans
receive the support and assistance they deserve. The American Legion
has taken several steps to help combat this crisis and reduce veteran
suicide including establishing a Suicide Prevention Program on May 9,
2018 to study, develop, and encourage best practices in veteran
programs. The American Legion's Veterans Affairs & Rehabilitation
Division also published a white paper report titled, ``Veteran
Suicide''.\33\ This report describes causes, risk factors, and
protective factors of veteran suicide, as well as the American Legion's
concerns and recommendations regarding this tragic national issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ https://www.legion.org/publications/242424/veteran-suicide-
white-paper
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VA Economic Hardship Report Act would require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to submit a report detailing the economic factors
which contribute to veteran suicides to include poverty, food
insecurity, and housing insecurity. This would be followed by a study
between these economic factors and their correlations with veteran
suicides. The American Legion Resolution No. 20: Suicide Prevention
Program urges the Legion to examine recent trends of veteran suicide
and analyze best practices in order to encourage their adoption by
government agencies.\34\ The VA Economic Hardship Report Act is in line
with this resolution and the American Legion supports this draft
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ https://archive.legion.org/handle/20.500.12203/9286
The American Legion supports this draft legislation as currently
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
written.
CONCLUSION
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, The American Legion thanks you for your leadership
on this matter and for allowing us the opportunity to explain the
position of our nearly two million members. Questions concerning this
testimony can be directed to Mr. Jeffrey Steele, Senior Legislative
Associate, in The American Legion's Legislative Division at (202) 861-
2700, or [email protected].
Prepared Statement of Colonel Robert F. Norton
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the
Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on pending
legislation. Veterans Education Success (VES) is a non-profit
organization that works to advance higher education success for all
military-affiliated students, and provides free counseling and legal
assistance to students using their GI Bill and military benefits.
We greatly appreciate the dedication and hard-work the Subcommittee
has put into these crucial pieces of legislation. We believe that many
of these bills are excellent and vitally needed to help veterans,
servicemembers, and their families successfully utilize their hard-
earned GI Bill benefits.
We are pleased to offer the following comments regarding the bills
being introduced:
Draft Legislation to require that educational institutions abide by
Principles of Excellence
VES strongly supports this bill, which would align the Department
of Veterans Affairs' (VA) with the Departments of Defense (DoD) and
Department of Education (ED) by codifying VA's Principles of
Excellence. This bill would give VA clear authority to ensure schools
are abiding by VA's Principles of Excellence for institutions of higher
education.
Currently, VA's Principles of Excellence are only voluntary, making
them unenforceable by VA. In contrast, DoD and ED currently have
contractual power to cut off schools that fail to abide by their
requirements. ED requires institutions receiving Federal student aid to
sign a ``Program Participation Agreement.''\1\ Signing the agreement
means a school certifies it will comply with statutes, regulations, and
policies, including financial responsibility standards and program
integrity rules such refraining from making ``substantial
misrepresentations'' to recruit students. These agreements empower the
Secretary of Education to revoke a school's eligibility or impose
limitations on a school's participation in Title IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Education, Sec. 668.14 Program Participation
Agreement, December 31, 1999, available at https://ifap.ed.gov/
regcomps/doc4072--bodyoftext.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, DoD requires institutions participating in Tuition
Assistance to sign a ``Memorandum of Understanding'' (MOU). This MOU
specifies rules and prohibitions related to deceptive recruiting and
other practices, and explicitly incorporates ED's program integrity
requirements. These requirements apply to the school itself, as well as
to agents like third party lead generators, marketing firms, and
companies that own or operate the school. DoD also prohibits aggressive
recruiting, including prohibiting schools from making three or more
unsolicited contacts (phone, email, in-person) to a servicemember or
engaging in same-day recruitment and registration.
We strongly support this bill and offer several suggestions for the
Subcommittee to further improve this bill:
Update the Principles of Excellence to include quality
metrics and more current standards for schools to abide by, to ensure
military-connected students using GI Bill benefits are provided
sufficient value. (Alternatively, the Subcommittee could direct VA to
undertake a process to update the Principles of Excellence in
conjunction with input from stakeholders).
Give VA guidance in determining what constitutes a
violation of the Principles of Excellence, as many instances may be
murky. For example, the Subcommittee could direct the VA Secretary to
consider such factors as Federal or state agency punitive action or
legal action against a school; the existence of a final court or
administrative judgment against the school; whether a school's
accrediting agency has taken punitive action against the school or
raised questions about the school's validity (such as probation, a
show-cause order, or requiring a teach-out plan for closing); whether
the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken actions taken
against a publicly traded college or de-listed its stock; and whether
student complaints filed on the GI Bill Feedback system suggest a
pattern of school violation of one of the Principles of Excellence.
Give VA intermediate authority (cutting off new
enrollments rather than both current and new enrollments) where the
violation is not egregious. For example, the Subcommittee could add
language authorizing VA to also ``suspend approval of new enrollments,
depending on the Secretary's discretion.''
Provide VA an implementation process, such as: ``VA shall
post a caution flag and notify the institution it has 30 days to come
into compliance; if the school is still not in compliance after 30
days, VA shall suspend new enrollments; if the school is still not in
compliance after 90 days, then the Secretary shall disapprove all
enrollments.''
Regarding lead generators, rewrite the language (at page
3 line 1) to read ``has a contractual relationship with the
institution,'' because lead generators do not ``own'' schools but
rather have a contractual relationship with them. Similarly, we
encourage the Subcommittee to address the problem of for-profit
conversions by adding ``or any entity that owns an educational
institution'' (on page 2, line 25).
Section 2.B.ii.II, banning incentive compensation, may be
superfluous because similar language was enacted by the Committee in
2012 as PL 112-249, Sec. 2. But we defer to the Subcommittee on the
necessity of including this provision.
We suggest the Subcommittee work to merge this bill with section 3
of the draft Student Veteran Empowerment Act, also before the
Subcommittee today.
Draft Legislation: ``Student Veteran Empowerment Act''
Veterans Education Success strongly supports this bill.
Section 2: Restoration of GI Bill for Closed Schools:
We strongly support this provision, which would give full GI Bill
restoration to all veterans at closed schools and disapproved schools.
Importantly, this bill would give GI Bill students parity with non-
veteran students. Veterans should have the same rights as their non-
veteran peers. At ED, students are entitled to reinstatement of their
Pell Grants and forgiveness of their student loans if their school
closed while they attended or within 120 days of their attendance.
VES has the following suggestions to strengthen this section:
Make restoration of benefits retroactive to cover
veterans who might fall through the cracks because their schools closed
between August 16, 2017 (the date the Colmery Forever GI Bill became
law), and the enactment of this bill.
Specify that GI Bill restoration is not available to
veterans who transfer ``to a comparable course'' at a new school.
As currently written, the bill implies the veteran loses
out on GI Bill restoration if he transfers even one credit out of 30
total credits. We suggest adding a threshold minimum number or percent
of transferred credits before the veteran loses out on full
restoration. The Subcommittee could also offer proportional restoration
based on the number of credits transferred. We also suggest the
Subcommittee add a time limit on the transfer window (e.g., if the
veteran hasn't transferred credits within 6 months of the school
closing).
Give student veterans the same rights as those using ED's
TItle IV funds by restoring GI Bill benefits for beneficiaries who were
defrauded by their school. Significant law enforcement evidence exists
documenting fraud against veterans by bad actor colleges.\2\ At ED,
students receive forgiveness of their student loans if their school
took out loans in their name without their permission or signed their
name without their knowledge (``False Certification''), wrongly
enrolled students in a program they could not benefit from (``Ability
to Benefit''), or deceived them (``Borrower Defense'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Law Enforcement Actions against Predatory Colleges,
Veterans Education Success, available at https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/t/
5acba2540e2e72f4e5d5d067/1523294804610/Law+Enforcement+List.FINAL.pdf ;
20 state Attorneys General letter to Chairman Bobby Scott detailing
recent actions taken by the states, April 22, 2019, available at http:/
/www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/News%20Documents/042419--Letter--for--
profit--colleges.pdf.
Section 3: Additional Requirements for Approval of Educational
Institutions:
We strongly support this section, which would add additional
requirements for VA approval of accredited educational institutions.
This would keep GI Bill funds from flowing to schools that other
Federal agencies have found to be acting in a fraudulent manner.
We suggest the Subcommittee work to merge this bill with the
Principles of Excellence bill also before the Subcommittee today.
We have the following suggestions to strengthen this bill:
Strengthen subparagraph (4) to require not only that the
program be eligible for Title IV, but also that the program be actually
approved by ED and operating under a Title IV Program Participation
Agreement. This ensures helpful oversight by ED of the school's
financial stability and program integrity. The Subcommittee could do
this by mirroring Congress' language in 10 USC Sec. 2006a: ``and has
entered into, and is complying with, a Program Participation Agreement
under section 487 of such Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1094).''\3\ In addition,
it would be prudent to mirror the DoD MOU for schools, which explicitly
requires that an institution be in compliance with program integrity
requirements consistent with sections 668.71 through 668.75 and 668.14
of Title 34, Code of Federal Regulations ``..... and refrain from high-
pressure recruitment tactics such as making multiple unsolicited
contacts (3 or more)... and engaging in same-day recruitment and
registration.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1094.
\4\ See DoD MOU Between DoD Office of the USD (P&R) and Educational
Institution and Service-Specific Addendums, available at https://
s3.amazonaws.com/dodmou/dodmouWeb site/documents/DoDMOU+3+SAMPLE+July--
10--2015.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strengthen subparagraph (5) by clarifying definitions and
a process for VA to handle schools that violate the Principles of
Excellence, as suggested above for the Principles of Excellence bill.
We note that some of our Veteran Service Organizations
(VSO) partners are worried that some high-quality schools may not sign
on to the Principles of Excellence. We would not oppose the addition to
subparagraph (5) of a timeline and process by which VA could
collaborate with highly-regarded schools to ensure their participation.
We also would support revisions to the substance of the Principles of
Excellence, to ensure they protect student veterans and weed out
predatory schools while not presenting obstacles to high-quality,
highly-regarded schools.
Consider requiring private schools to charge VA a tuition
that is no more than double the amount the school spends on student
instruction. Congress previously required public colleges to charge VA
no more than the in-state tuition rate for all veterans - even out of
state veterans. Similarly, the Subcommittee could require all private
colleges (or simply all colleges) to cap the amount they charge VA for
tuition to no more than double the amount the school actually spends on
the student's instruction. Currently, some colleges redirect GI Bill
dollars away from student education and towards unscrupulous spending
on things like deceptive, late night TV ads. Of the ten colleges
receiving the most Post 9/11 GI Bill tuition payments from Fiscal Years
(FY) 2009-2017, totaling $5.4 billion, seven spent less than one-third
of students' tuition and fees on education. These same schools produced
graduation rates lower than 28% and only half of those who graduated
earned more income than a high school graduate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Veterans Education Success, Should Colleges Spend the GI Bill
on Veterans' Education or Late Night TV Ads? And Which Colleges Offer
the Best Instructional Bang for the GI Bill Buck?, April 19, 2019,
available at https://vetsedsuccess.org/research-and-reports/ves/should-
colleges-spend-the-gi-bill-on-veterans-education-or-late-night-tv-ads-
and-which-colleges-offer-the-best-instructional-bang-for-the-gi-bill-
buck/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close a loophole in 38 U.S.C., Sec. 3676 (``Career Ready
Student Veterans Act'') by inserting ``specialized'' before
``accrediting agency'' in paragraphs (14)(B) and (15)(B). The Career
Ready Student Veterans Act forbids GI Bill approval of programs that
leave graduates ineligible for licensing in occupations that require a
license (such as registered nurses and electricians). Congress' goal
was to ensure GI Bill benefits are not wasted on a program where the
graduate is ineligible for the job he thought he trained for. A 2018
VES report found that the Act's intended ban had a loophole regarding
law schools not approved by the American Bar Association (ABA).\6\ Many
such law schools operate in California, many of them online. GI Bill
students who graduate from one of these law schools are generally not
able to practice law in their state of residence. The General Counsel
for California's State Approving Agency (SAA) concluded that the
wording of the Career Ready Student Veterans Act did not specifically
call for accreditation by a ``specialized'' accreditor, such as the
ABA. Rather, the statute specifies only that a school must be
accredited by an organization recognized by the Secretary of Education.
Because law schools not recognized by the ABA may nevertheless be part
of a larger university that has institutional accreditation by an
organization recognized by the Secretary, the California SAA's General
Counsel directed its SAA that the Career Ready Student Veterans Act ban
was unenforceable against these unrecognized law schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Veterans Education Success, Despite a 2016 Statute, the GI Bill
Still Pays for Degrees that Do Not Lead to a Job, December 2018,
available at https://vetsedsuccess.org/research-and-reports/ves/ves-
report-despite-a-2016-statute-the-gi-bill-still-pays-for-degrees-that-
do-not-lead-to-a-job/; see generally Veterans Education Success, The GI
Bill Pays for Degrees that Do Not Lead to a Job, September 2015,
available at https://vetsedsuccess.org/research-and-reports/ves/the-gi-
bill-pays-for-degrees-that-do-not-lead-to-job/.
Section 4: Oversight of Educational Institutions Placed on
Heightened Cash Monitoring Status by Secretary of Education:
We strongly support this section, which would require SAAs to
perform risk-based oversight of any school under Education Department
monitoring or US Justice Department (DOJ) or Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) legal action for misleading students. This bill is needed to
ensure SAAs undertake proper risk-based program reviews, especially in
the aftermath of high-profile DOJ and FTC legal action against schools
in recent years, without proper review by SAAs of the appropriateness
of continued VA approval of the schools.
In December 2018, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG)
conducted an audit of the VA and SAAs, concluding VA could waste an
estimated $2.3 billion over the next 5 years in GI Bill funds flowing
to schools that should not be approved.\7\ The OIG highlighted the
problem of colleges that utilize potentially misleading, deceptive, or
erroneous advertising practices.\8\ Yale Law School raised similar
concerns in its report, ``VA's Failure to Protect Veterans from
Deceptive College Recruiting Practices.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the Inspector
General, VA's Oversight of State Approving Agency Program Monitoring
for Post-9/11 GI Bill Students, December 3, 2018, available at https://
www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-16-00862-179.pdf.
\8\ Id.
\9\ Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic, Memorandum Re:
VA's Failure to Protect Veterans from Deceptive Recruiting Practices,
February 26, 2016, available at https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/
clinic/document/vlsc--ves-memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We offer the Subcommittee the following recommendations to
strengthen the bill:
Add time limits, to ensure there are not lengthy delays.
For example, the Subcommittee could require the Secretary to alert SAAs
``within 30 days'' and could require the SAA to complete the risk-based
review ``within 90 days.''
Clarify what is entailed in an SAA ``oversight visit'' to
ensure the SAA undertakes a thorough review to protect GI Bill funds.
Expand the triggers for SAA review beyond DOJ and FTC
legal action for ``misleading marketing status.'' If DOJ sues a school
for defrauding the Federal government (but not for misleading
marketing), as it did in the case of Education Management
Corporation,\10\ or if DOJ sends the owners of a college to jail for
defrauding ED, as it did in the case of American Commercial
College,\11\ or if ED cuts off a school entirely for stealing Federal
student aid, as it recently did with Argosy, it would be prudent for
the Subcommittee to require careful SAA review. None of these cases
involved ``misleading marketing,'' but it would nevertheless be prudent
for the Subcommittee to require careful examination of such colleges'
trustworthiness to receive VA funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ UPI News, ``For-Profit College Must Pay $200M to Forgive
Student Loans, Pay Settlement,'' (Nov. 17, 2015), available at https://
www.upi.com/Top--News/US/2015/11/17/For-profit-college-must-pay-200M-
to-forgive-loans-pay-settlement/7611447773298/
\11\ Department of Justice Press Release, American Commercial
Colleges, Inc. And Its President Sentenced On Federal Charges, October
2, 2014, available at https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/american-
commercial-colleges-inc-and-its-president-sentenced-federal-charges.
Similarly, it would be prudent for the Subcommittee to require
careful examination following any official state or action against a
school, such as when a state agency halts new enrollments or revokes
the certificates of 22 programs offered by a school, as the Texas
Workforce Commission did after finding American Technical College had
willfully filed false job placement numbers.\12\ More recently, a
bipartisan group of 49 state Attorneys General sued Career Education
Corporation for operating colleges that defrauded students.\13\
Similarly, some states have cut off schools for fraud. State action,
alone, should warrant at least some examination of a school's
trustworthiness to receive VA funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Forbes, ``For-loss education: How investors, lenders stand to
lose everything in ATI Enterprises,'' January 17, 2013, available at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/spleverage/2013/01/17/for-loss-education-
how-investors-lenders-stand-to-lose-everything-in-ati-enterprises/
#5da6453f374d; US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions, ``For-Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the
Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success'' (2012).
\13\ Iowa Attorney General Press Release, For-profit school to
forgo collecting loans, change practices in agreement with Miller, 48
AGs, January 3, 2019, available at https://www.iowaattorneygeneral.gov/
newsroom/for-profit-school-education-cec-career-ags-intercontinental/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to add the following triggers
for careful oversight by SAAs:
Law enforcement action against a school or its owners;
Federal, state, or local government action against a
school or its owners;
Final court or administrative judgment against a school
or its owners;
Accrediting agency action against a school (e.g.,
probation, a show-cause order, or a teach-out plan);
SEC action against a publicly traded school (including
delisting its stock);
VA OIG audit or investigation concerns;
More than 50 student complaints on the GI Bill Feedback
System;
Poor outcomes for students, especially schools that leave
students with abysmal job placement rates and earning less than a high
school graduate; and
Extremely low percent of tuition spent on actual student
instruction, with most GI Bill funds being diverted away from veterans.
Authorize the VA Secretary to act immediately to suspend
enrollments, without SAA review, if there has been egregious behavior.
For example, when ED determined that Argosy had stolen Title IV funds
and immediately cut off the school, VA expressed that it lacked
authority to act in the wake of the ED's action, thereby leaving VA
funds at risk.
Add caution flags on the GI Bill Comparison Tool so
student veterans may be better informed. Ideally, the Subcommittee
would also add a risk-index to the GI Bill Comparison Tool so that
students are aware of schools that pose a risk to their benefits.
Strengthen the existing ban on deceptive and misleading
advertising and recruiting in 38 USC Sec. 3696. In December 2018, the
VA's OIG reported that VA could waste an estimated $2.3 billion in
improper payments to ineligible programs over the next 5 years.\14\ The
risk was particularly high at schools that appeared to be in violation
of 38 USC Sec. 3696, and the OIG expressed concern that VA is not
adequately implementing Sec. 3696. Yale Law School raised the same
concern in its report, ``VA's Failure to Protect Veterans from
Deceptive College Recruiting Practices,'' as did VSOs and MSOs in two
letters to the Secretary.\15\ The statute could be clarified and
strengthened by amending it to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Department of Veterans Affairs, Oversight of State Approving
Agency Program Monitoring for Post-9/11 GI Bill Students, December 3,
2018, available at https://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-16-00862-179.pdf.
\15\ See Letter to VA Secretary (Feb. 14, 2019), available at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/t/
5c6db4db1905f4690dd06f6f/1550693596300/VSO+Letter+to+VA+Secretary-
1.pdf; Letter to VA Secretary (May 16, 2016), available at: https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/t/
5744bdfc2eeb81f2ceb68358/1464122877006/
VSO+MSO+Letter+to+VA+Secretary+re+GI+Bill+oversight.Signed+%281%29.pdf.
Define ``preliminary findings'' in 38 U.S.C. Sec.
3696(c) as ``Any federal, state, or local government lawsuit, or any
qui tam legal action'';
Clarify ``erroneous, deceptive or misleading'' in 38
U.S.C. Sec. 3696(a) by including automatic triggers (e.g., any Federal
or state evidence of consumer protection violations; a final court or
administrative judgment following a lawsuit for misleading or deceptive
recruiting; or a threshold of student complaints filed);
Provide VA with a strict timeline to act (e.g., ``must
undertake review within 90 days of learning of a law enforcement
investigation or receiving student complaints'');
Address VA's fear of disrupting current student
enrollments by adding an option for barring ``new enrollments'' (vs.
current enrollments);
Reassure VA about student relief by citing ``student
relief shall be in accordance with Forever GI Bill Colmery Act''; and
Explicitly empower SAAs to cut off schools that are in
violation of 3696, as SAAs currently believe they lack authority to
act.
Section 5: Verification of Enrollment for Purposes of Receipt of
Post-9/11 Educational Assistance
We support this section of the bill that requires monthly
verification of Post-9/11 GI Bill enrollment, as the Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) already does. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO)
recommended exactly this solution (monthly verification of Post-9/11),
as one of its eight recommendations, to solve the problem of GI Bill
overpayments, which cost $416 million in FY 2014, affecting one in four
GI Bill students.\16\ Currently, veterans incur significant amounts of
overpayments between the time the student drops a course and the
verification occurs much later. This has a negative impact on veterans
as well as on taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Post 9/11 GI Bill:
Additional Actions Needed to Help Reduce Overpayments and Increase
Collections, October 2015, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/
673230.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We offer the following suggestion to strengthen this bill:
Consider shifting the monthly reporting burden from
students to the schools, a process schools already do regularly for
students using Title IV student aid.
Draft Legislation authorizing VA to require Letters of Credit
VES strongly supports this bill, which would give VA Letter of
Credit authority similar to ED's, allowing VA to collect money from a
failing school's line of credit, to help cover GI Bill restoration.
This bill would thereby ease the burden on taxpayers to fund the cost
of restoring GI Bill benefits to veterans at colleges that suddenly
close or are disapproved.
By enabling VA to have the funds to cover benefit restoration for
VA students, this bill also would enable parity for VA students with
students at ED. Currently, veterans at closed and disapproved schools
are entitled to restoration of only the current (interrupted) term of
GI Bill benefits (except for schools that closed from 2015 to August
16, 2017, such as ITT Tech and Corinthian, for whom the Forever GI Bill
provided full restoration of benefits).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Department of Veterans Affairs, Restoration of Benefits
After School Closure or if a School is Disapproved for GI Bill
Benefits, available at https://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/fgib/
restoration.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, ED provides the following protections to students
receiving Federal student aid:
Reinstatement of their Pell Grants;\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See U.S. Department of Education, October 28, 2016, available
at https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
ED%20response%20to%20Senator%20Murray.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgiveness of their student loans if their school closed
while they attended or closed within 120 days of their attendance and
if they do not transfer their credits to a similar program;\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See If your school closes while you're enrolled or soon after
you withdraw, you may be eligible for discharge of your Federal
student, available at https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/
forgiveness-cancellation/closed-school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgiveness of their student loans if their school took
out loans in their name without their permission or signed their name
without their knowledge (``False Certification'') or wrongly enrolled
them in a program they could not benefit from (``Ability to
Benefit'');\20\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Department of Education, ``In certain situations, you can
have your Federal student loan forgiven, canceled, or discharged,''
available at https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-
cancellation#false-certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgiveness of their student loans if their school
deceived them (``Borrower Defense'').\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Department of Education, ``Borrowers may be eligible for
forgiveness of the Federal student loans used to attend a school if
that school misled them or engaged in other misconduct in violation of
certain laws,'' available at https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/
forgiveness-cancellation/borrower-defense.
ED pays for these student protections, in part by requiring
``Letters of Credit'' (guaranteed by a bank or financial institution)
from colleges. ED requires such Letters of Credit for assorted reasons,
including financial stability; letters of credit range in amount from
10% of the Federal student aid received by the school to a higher
percentage.\22\ The letters protect students and taxpayers from having
to cover liabilities caused by a school. If the school closes, ED may
draw funds from the credit to cover expenses, such as Pell Grant
restoration and student loan cancellation costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Department of Education, ``Financial Responsibility
Standards Requiring a Letter of Credit,'' available at https://
studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-center/school/loc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VES has the following recommendation to strengthen this bill:
As drafted, the bill requires VA to review schools'
financial stability. We are concerned VA lacks the bandwidth and
expertise to study school financial stability. In contrast, ED
maintains a team of experts dedicated to studying the financial
stability of schools. Therefore we urge the Subcommittee to remove the
burden from VA by turning the bill into a simple trigger mechanism in
which VA would be prompted by an ED decision: If ED has determined a
school is not financially stable and should post a letter of credit
worth 10% of Title IV funds received by the school, then VA should be
automatically triggered to similarly require the school to post a
letter of credit worth 10% of GI Bill funds received by the school. In
this way, VA (and the taxpayers funding the GI Bill) would have the
same authority as ED with access to bank-guaranteed funds to cover
liabilities caused by a school closure.
Draft Legislation: ``Forever GI Bill Class Evaluation Act''
VES supports this bill, which would defer disbursement of GI Bill
payments until 14 days after the start of the academic term. This bill
would address two problems: It would stop the incentive for recruiters
at low-quality, predatory schools to target veterans, and it would
address the problem of GI Bill overpayments.
Currently, VA disburses GI Bill tuition to a school for the entire
term after a student sits for just 1 day of class. If students drop out
after the first day, the school still gets the tuition and fees for the
entire term. This incentivizes predatory schools to use deceptive
tactics to convince military-connected students to sit for just 1 day.
This ``Just 1 Day'' mentality leads unscrupulous schools to focus
primarily on convincing a veteran to enroll, rather than on the
academic success of their students. Many such schools explicitly adopt
a business model called ``churn,'' in which they plan for students to
drop out quickly, so they focus on quick and short enrollments. This
causes significant waste, fraud, and abuse of a student's hard-earned
education benefits and taxpayer dollars. Passage of this bill would
stop schools from receiving a veteran's entire term of GI Bill benefits
after just one day of classes. It would require schools to demonstrate
sufficient quality so that students do not drop out in the first 14
days.
This bill also would provide a grace period for students as they
navigate the ``add/drop period'' at the beginning of a term so they can
choose their classes and determine their course load. This would enable
veterans to figure out how many classes they can manage during a
semester, rather than signing up for too many credits. It would also
help solve the problem of GI Bill ``overpayments,'' in which VA has
paid out more in tuition and fees than the student's course load
requires. GAO reported that GI Bill overpayments cost $416 million in
FY 2014, affecting one in four GI Bill students.\23\ A major cause of
GI Bill overpayments is the way VA pays out the full term of GI Bill
after a veteran sits for just one day of class. Should a student using
GI Bill benefits withdraw from classes after that first day, the school
has already accrued the entire term of GI Bill funds, creating an
``overpayment'' of GI Bill funds by VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Post 9/11 GI Bill:
Additional Actions Needed to Help Reduce Overpayments and Increase
Collections, October 2015, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/
673230.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, ED prorates the amount of tuition the school has
``earned'' during the term, up until 60 percent of the semester has
passed (after the 60 percent cutoff, a school is viewed as having
earned 100 percent of the term of Title IV funds). ED handles
overpayments by adjusting future disbursements to reflect past
overpayments.
VES has the following recommendation to strengthen the bill:
To further address the problems of GI Bill overpayments
identified by GAO: Because schools receive GI Bill tuition payments
directly from VA, we urge the Subcommittee to direct VA to collect
tuition overpayments from the schools, not the students. Currently, VA
claws back GI Bill tuition overpayments from students, not from
schools, even though the school received the tuition payments.\24\ This
policy places the veteran in the position of having to come up with
tens of thousands of dollars in cash to pay VA for an overpayment, even
though the student never handled a dime of that tuition money. To
recoup GI Bill overpayments from students, VA currently can garnish a
veteran's tax returns and withhold a veteran's disability payments, as
well as report debts to credit rating agencies. Such actions can cause
unbelievable stress and hardship on veterans. For example, in 2017,
Task and Purpose published a story about Lance Corporal Brian Easley
who was killed by police in an armed stand-off.\25\ Easley was driven
to this point in part because of his dependence on his disability check
from the VA, which had been garnished due to overpayments for classes
he had taken a year before. The school Easley attended was known for
overcharging veterans and having abysmal outcomes for their programs.
While veterans should be responsible for repaying any overpayment on
the housing allowance they receive directly from VA, they should not be
held responsible for any overpayments on tuition made directly to the
schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See 38 USC Sec. 3680 (e).
\25\ Task and Purpose, They Didn't Have To Kill Him: The Death of
Lance Corporal Bian Easley, Aaron Gell, April 9, 2019, available at
https://taskandpurpose.com/didnt-kill-death-lance-corporal-brian-
easley.
Draft Legislation to extend the time period under which an election
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
must be made for Montgomery GI Bill Enrollment
VES supports this bill, which would extend the amount of time
available to servicemembers to consider their options before they are
confronted with the choice of opting-out of the MGIB.
We have two suggestions to further improve this bill:
In 2015, The US Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission recommended to Congress that the ``Montgomery
GI Bill - Active Duty (Chap. 30, 38 U.S.C) should be sunset.''\26\ The
Commission stated that ``duplicative education assistance programs
should be sunset to reduce administrative costs and to simplify the
education benefit system.''\27\ We agree, and encourage the
Subcommittee to sunset the MGIB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ VES Statement for the Record on Legislative Priorities for the
115th Congress, March 22, 2017, available at https://vetsedsuccess.org/
wp-content/uploads/2019/01/march-2017-ves-legislative-priorities-
svac.pdf.
\27\ Politico, Thousands in GI Bill fees paid by recruits for
`essentially no reason at all,' Kimberly Hefling, July 10, 2019,
available at https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/10/thousands-in-gi-
bill-fees-paid-by-recruits-for-essentially-no-reason-at-all-1561175
(quoting the 2015 Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also urge the Subcommittee to strengthen the bill by
changing the MGIB election from opt-out to opt-in, so that
servicemembers have to actively opt-in if they want MGIB. Last fiscal
year,70% of new recruits failed to opt-out of the MGIB.\28\ These
servicemembers pay $100/month ($1200/year), but only 3% end up using
MGIB, and only a small percentage who use Post-9/11 GI Bill are able to
get their $1200 back because they must meet strict requirements.\29\ In
essence, the $1,200 payroll reduction operates as a ``troop tax,''
whereby Uncle Sam is taking advantage of first-year servicemembers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, What does the Coast
Guard know about the GI Bill that the other services do not?, Patrick
Campbell, December 12, 2017, available at https://
www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/what-does-coast-guard-know-about-
gi-bill-other-services-do-not/.
\29\ Supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft Legislation to authorize SAAs to carry out outreach activities
We do not oppose SAA outreach activities, but question the
importance of it, given the VA OIG's recent conclusion that SAAs will
waste $2.3 billion over the next 5 years in GI Bill payments to schools
that should not be approved for GI Bill, but nevertheless are. The VA
OIG estimated 86% of SAAs ``did not adequately oversee the education
and training programs.''
SAAs have consistently expressed (including to this Subcommittee)
that they are stretched too thin, with a heavy workload of compliance
surveys, which has limited their ability to conduct robust college
oversight and risk-based reviews. This has enabled fraudulent colleges
to continue receiving GI Bill benefits, when they should not, including
schools sued by DOJ for defrauding ED or cut off from ED for stealing
Title IV funds. We urge the Subcommittee to encourage SAAs to dedicate
their time and attention to risk-based program reviews and college
oversight.
Draft Legislation: ``GI Bill Access to Career Credentials Act''
This bill would authorize GI Bill funds to pay for preparatory
classes for professional licenses and certifications. As currently
drafted, this bill is vulnerable to abuse by subpar licensing prep
companies. VES has the following suggestion to resolve this
vulnerability:
Add quality controls so that GI Bill benefits are not
wasted on licensing and certification preparatory classes that do not
meet government requirements for licensing and certification. We
suggest the Subcommittee adopt the unanimous Congressional quality
control language from 10 USC Sec. 2006a: ``and which meets the
instructional curriculum licensure or certification requirements of the
State or is a program approved or licensed by the State board or
agency.''
We would support this bill if such quality control language were
added.
Draft Legislation to increase the monthly housing stipend for online
education
We oppose this bill because it is likely to incentivize online
colleges to push veterans into enrolling to get a higher monthly
allowance for housing. Students should not be making decisions related
to education based on how much housing allowance they will receive but
on what works best for them.
In addition, online schools do not always provide a strong return
on investment for students and may not leave graduates eligible to work
in licensed jobs. VES provides free assistance to thousands of veterans
who have told us they experienced a subpar education at an online
college. For example, one student veteran, Brandon T, said of his
online program:
``[I] was told that I could get some credits online while I worked
so that I could transfer to a local university when I was ready. I got
33 credits [online] using a 18 months of benefits of my post/9-11 GI
Bill. Finally transferred to the University of South Carolina and none
of my credits transferred.''
Another student veteran, Deandre A., expressed a fairly common
student concern about hidden costs at an online program:
``I enrolled into the online BS Psychology program and have taken
out Student Loans along with Financial Aid and that seems to never be
able to cover the cost of the degree which I don't quite understand. It
seems that the closer I get to completing my degree the more money that
has to come out of my pocket because financial aid and student loans
don't cover the cost of the classes.''
VES also has the following suggestion:
Close the current loophole in 38 U.S.C. Sec.
3313(c)(1)(B)(iii), which provides that individuals eligible for the
Post-9/11 GI Bill who are pursuing a program of education on more than
a half-time basis ``solely'' through distance learning are eligible for
50 percent of the BAH. By taking just one class required to earn a
certificate or degree in an actual classroom, beneficiaries qualify for
the full BAH. This loophole has allowed schools to game the GI Bill by
offering essentially online programs with one class offered in a
classroom setting. To close this loophole, the statute should be
amended to specify that a full BAH is available only to beneficiaries
enrolled in online education who take a specific percentage of classes
in a brick and mortar setting, for example 25 percent or 30 percent of
their classes. Congress closed a similar loophole in 2017 by requiring
that BAH be based on the location of the campus where the individual
physically participates in the majority of classes, rather than on the
zip code of the institution of higher learning where the individual is
enrolled. The change was a response to schools with a VA facility code
located in a high-cost area, which was used to determine the amount of
the BAH, even though instruction took place at a branch campus in an
area with a lower cost of living. (The transition to this new basis for
determining living stipends was delayed because the VA was unable to
set up a new system that accurately calculated the monthly payments.)
Draft Legislation to require proprietary educational institutions to
comply with Federal revenue limits
This bill would close the 90/10 loophole in the Higher Education
Act (HEA) by creating and then closing the same loophole in Title 38.
Thirty-seven Veterans and Military Service Organizations wrote to
Congress this year to say our number one collective priority for HEA
reauthorization is to close the 90/10 loophole: ``Closing the loophole
creates parity for military-connected students using their education
benefits with those students using Title IV funds. It is inconsistent
to protect some Federal funds (Title IV) from low performing schools
and not others (VA and DoD).''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Letter from Thirty-Seven VSOs/MSOs to Congress sharing
priorities for Higher Education Act reauthorization, May 2, 2019,
available at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/t/5cca11f91905f41be87648f5/1556746746801/
VSO+MSO+HEA+Priorities.FINAL.2May2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The HEA's 90/10 rule stipulates that a for-profit education
business may derive no more than ninety percent of its revenues from
the Title IV Federal student aid.\31\ The purpose of this revenue cap
is to force schools to prove market viability, ensuring that Federal
student aid isn't used to prop up low quality schools that are unable
to attract at least 10% of their revenue from private sources,
including employers, scholarship providers, and families. The Supreme
Court wrote that the rule's precursor was ``a device intended by
Congress to allow the free market mechanism to operate and weed out
those institutions [which] could survive only by the heavy influx of
Federal payments.''\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 [20 USC Sec.
1094(a)(24)]: Sec. 487(a).
\32\ See Cleland v. Nat'l College of Business, 435 US 213 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current loophole hurting veterans was created because the GI
Bill and DoD's Tuition Assistance program were largely dormant when the
Federal law was written and were not enumerated in the statute as
sources of Federal student aid.\33\ Through an accounting gimmick
roundly criticized by state Attorneys General, for-profit colleges are
able to count the GI Bill and DoD tuition assistance as non-federal
revenue; as a result, they can receive up to 100% of their revenues
from Federal funds without demonstrating market viability by support
from employers or individuals willing to pay with their own money,\34\
in violation of the law's rationale upheld by the Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See Bloomberg, For-Profit Colleges Target the Military, Daniel
Golden, December 30, 2009, available at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2009-12-30/for-profit-colleges-target-the-military (quoting
Sarah Flanagan, former Senate staffer: ``When the law was enacted, for-
profits hadn't yet moved into the military market, so the legislation's
sponsors weren't focused on Defense Dept. tuition assistance.'').
\34\ Veterans Education Success, What is the 90/10 Loophole,
available at https://veteranseducationsuccess.org/90-10-loophole/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are hopeful that a bipartisan agreement to close the 90/10
loophole will emerge through the HEA this summer. If the House and
Senate education Committees fail to close the 90/10 loophole this year,
we would request the Veterans Affairs Committees step in to close it by
creating and then closing the same loophole in Title 38.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's creative approach to closing the
90-10 loophole and we encourage Congress to continue work to finally
close this loophole.
The Subcommittee could also consider exempting colleges that
dedicate at least half of tuition to student instruction and that
produce graduates who earn more than a high school graduate, indicating
that the college provided some benefit to those who enrolled.
116 HR 2618: Military Spouse Residency Requirements
We support this bill that ensures military spouses are able to
satisfy state residency requirements. We understand that many spouses
struggle with license portability and state residency requirements
while they move multiple times during their spouse's military career.
116 HR 2227: ``Gold Star Spouses and Spouses of Injured Servicemembers
Leasing Relief Expansion Act of 2019"
This bill would give spouses the ability to get out of leases if
the servicemember is killed or severely injured. We support this bill.
We note that the Office of Servicemember Affairs at the US Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau reports complaints from servicemembers'
spouses who are negatively affected by the situation this bill would
help solve.
Draft Legislation: ``VA Economic Hardship Report Act''
VES does not have expertise on this bill, which would require VA to
study the link between veteran poverty factors and suicide rates.
However, we have noticed suicidal comments from veterans who were
defrauded out of their one shot at the GI Bill by predatory colleges.
We suggest the Subcommittee consider adding GI Bill usage and success
as a factor to study in the correlation between poverty indicators and
veteran suicide.
116 HR 2924: ``Housing for Women Veterans Act''
We have no particular expertise on this bill.
Draft Legislation to authorize specially adapted housing for blind
veterans
We have no particular expertise on this bill.
Draft Legislation to collect overpayments of specially adapted housing
assistance
We have no particular expertise on this bill.
116 HR 561: ``Protecting Business Opportunities for Veterans Act''
We have no particular expertise on this bill.
116 HR 1615: ``Verification Alignment and Service-disabled Business
Adjustment Act''
We have no particular expertise on this bill.
116 HR 716ih: ``Homeless Veterans Legal Services Act''
We have no particular expertise on this bill.
Draft Legislation: ``Legal Services for Homeless Veterans Act''
We have no particular expertise on this bill.
Veterans Education Success sincerely appreciates the opportunity to
express our views on legislation before the Subcommittee today.
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, Veterans
Education Success has received no Federal grants in Fiscal Year 2019,
nor in the two previous fiscal years.
Prepared Statement of William Hubbard
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America (SVA) to submit
testimony on the topic of pending legislation related to veteran
transition and economic opportunity. Established in 2008, SVA is a
national nonprofit founded with the mission of empowering student
veterans as they transition to civilian life; we provide student
veterans with the resources, network support, and advocacy needed to
succeed in higher education.
With over 1,500 campus chapters across the United States, and in
four countries overseas, we serve more than 750,000 student veterans
and military-connected students. We establish a lifelong commitment to
each student's success through local leadership workshops, national
conferences, and top-tier employer relations. As the largest chapter-
based student organization in America, we are a force and voice for the
interests of veterans in higher education.
Edward Everett, our nation's 20th Secretary of State, and the
former President of Harvard University was famously quoted as stating,
``Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.''
While we have the finest military that the world has ever known, the
sentiment remains; the importance of education to our nation's national
security remains of paramount importance.
Draft legislation, To extend the time period under which an election
must be made for entitlement for educational assistance under the
Montgomery GI Bill
This bill proposes to extend the deadline new military recruits
have to decide to opt-out of the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) Chapter 30
educational assistance program. SVA is in full support of this
proposal.
The MGIB served our nation's veterans well for many years. However,
with the advent of the Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill, the MGIB is now
little more than a superfluous tax on our troops. Except for a few
niche scenarios, the Post-9/11 GI Bill provides more generous resources
and better overall value than the MGIB. Despite this, the MGIB lingers
on through the automatic enrollment of new servicemembers who are not
fully informed of the differences between the two programs. Indeed,
many of the drill instructors counseling recruits on these programs are
unclear about the differences themselves. These new servicemembers bear
the brunt of the cost-twelve months of reduced pay-for a benefit the
vast majority will never use or be refunded. Taken in the context of
the recently implemented Blended Retirement System, new members of our
military are facing multiple competing financial strains.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Defense, Uniformed Services Blended
Retirement System. https://militarypay.defense.govblendedretirement/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When presented time to review information on the options,
servicemembers quickly discern which benefit is better for them.
Between FY2014 and FY2018, 94 percent of veterans made the
understandable choice to use the Post-9/11 GI Bill over the MGIB.\2\
Yet due to current service-level policies, new servicemembers are often
automatically enrolled in the MGIB unless they submit a written request
to opt-out within a few days of entering initial training. In the Navy,
that deadline is two days, and in the Army they get \3\three days\4\.
Statutory requirements suggest a short period of time after entering
the military to pay into the MGIB fund or not, though there is no
requirement dictating that new enlistees are mandated to pay into this
program as a matter of policy.\5\ For example, the Army does not
automatically enroll new officers, who are otherwise given a similar
timeframe, though with the option to opt-in versus opt-out
requirements.\6\ Given the importance of this decision for the
servicemember's future, it is imperative to provide all new
servicemembers with adequate time to weigh the costs and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration. Annual Benefits Reports. (FY2014-FY2018) https://
www.benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/abr/
\3\ Gross, Natalie. Military Times. ``Wasting money? Most new
recruits pay $1,200 for lesser education benefit.'' December 22, 2017.
https://rebootcamp.militarytimes.com/education-transition/education/
2017/12/22/wasting-money-most-new-recruits-pay-1200-for-lesser-
education-benefit/
\4\ U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Montgomery GI Bill - Active
Duty. Accessed July 2019. https://www.hrc.army.mil/content/
Montgomery%20GI%20Bill%20--%20Active%20Duty
\5\ Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 3011. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/3011
\6\ U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Montgomery GI Bill - Active
Duty. Accessed July 2019. https://www.hrc.army.mil/content/
Montgomery%20GI%20Bill%20--%20Active%20Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We strongly believe that servicemembers would choose to opt out of
the MGIB in favor of the Post-9/11 GI Bill if given appropriate time to
consider their options. In FY2017, the Department of Defense (DoD)
reported 70 percent of new servicemembers enrolled in the MGIB
program.\7\ Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data from that year
shows of all VA education benefit recipients, only 4 percent used MGIB,
while over 90 percent used Post-9/11.\8\ That trend continued in the
following year, with MGIB usage continuing to fall to just 3
percent.\9\ When servicemembers have time to appropriately weigh the
benefits available to them, the overwhelming majority choose to leave
the MGIB behind.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Campbell, Patrick. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. ``What
does the Coast Guard know about the GI Bill that the other services do
not?'' Dec. 12, 2017. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/blog/
what-does-coast-guard-know-about-gi-bill-other-services-do-not/
\8\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration. Annual Benefits Reports. https://www.benefits.va.gov/
REPORTS/abr/
\9\ Ibid.
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We consistently hear from SVA chapter members that information
conveyed to servicemembers regarding their education benefits while in
entry-level training is misleading or outright inaccurate. In some
cases, new servicemembers learn about these programs from military
leaders who use the MGIB and Post-9/11 GI Bill names interchangeably,
further complicating the situation. As noted in a recent POLITICO
article, it is clear that the $1,200 fee is presented as a way to ``buy
into GI Bill benefits,'' though generally without clear guidance on
various education programs differ.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Hefling, Kimberly. Politico. ``Thousands in GI Bill fees paid
by recruits `for essentially no reason at all'.'' July 7, 2019. https:/
/www.politico.com/story/2019/07/10/thousands-in-gi-bill-fees-paid-by-
recruits-for-essentially-no-reason-at-all-1561175
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public-facing Web sites of the different service branches also make
it nearly impossible to get clear information about the nuances of the
different options. One example pulled from the sparse information
provided on the Navy's page on the MGIB reads, ``If you sign up and do
not want it, there are no refunds.''\12\ On the Army's Human Resources
page, they state, ``Monies reduced are not taxable and not refundable.
The Soldier agrees to a reduction in pay. According to the law, it was
money that was never in the control of the individual. The ruling is
you cannot get a refund of money you never earned. Monies reduced
cannot be stopped or suspended.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Navy Personnel Command. MGIB FAQs. https://
www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/career/education/GIBill/Pages/FAQs.aspx
\13\ U.S. Army Human Resources Command. Montgomery GI Bill - Active
Duty. Accessed July 2019. https://www.hrc.army.mil/content/
Montgomery%20GI%20Bill%20--%20Active%20Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, in direct contradiction to these statements, acknowledgement
forms new servicemembers sign regarding their enrollment in the MGIB
state an individual may, ``receive a refund of that pay reduction,''
and then go on to list the onerous criteria one must meet in order to
receive that refund.\14\ Uninformed servicemembers who wish to know
whether a refund is available should be properly informed a refund is
possible, but only under very specific conditions. Servicemembers who
pay into the MGIB, but do not exhaust their benefits, are eligible for
a refund of their original payment.\15\ However, due to the high bar
for refund eligibility, few \16\veterans \17\qualify.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Executive Services Directorate. Form DD-2366. https://
www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd2366.pdf
\15\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. ``Refund of the
Montgomery GI Bill $1,200.00 buy-in for Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients?''
https://gibill.custhelp.va.gov/app/answers/detail/a--id/949/kw/refund
\16\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. ``Can I get a refund of
the money that I paid into the Montgomery GI Bill?'' https://
gibill.custhelp.va.gov/app/answers/detail/a--id/180/related/1
\17\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. ``Refund of the
Montgomery GI Bill $1,200.00 buy-in for Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients?''
https://gibill.custhelp.va.gov/app/answers/detail/a--id/949//refund-of-
the-montgomery-gi-bill-%241%2C200.00-buy-in-for-post-9%2F11-gi-bill
\18\ Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Annual Benefits Reports. https://www.benefits.va.gov/
REPORTS/abr/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2016-FY2018 VA data shows the agency averaged an annual total of
14,407 refunds at $1,105 each, representing less than one in ten
veterans who contributed to the MGIB. In the same timeframe, the DoD
reported an average of over 136,000 new enrollments into the MGIB
annually, resulting in more than $160 million dollars of revenue. In
effect, DoD generates approximately $145 million dollars each year
directly from our servicemembers' pockets.
We would also encourage the Committee to consider changing the
language of the MGIB to make it an ``opt-in'' decision instead of an
``opt-out'' option. An eventual 10-year sunset of the program will
conclude this program in favor of the Forever GI Bill, the Forever GI
Bill being a much more generous program with no expiration date.\19\
Our servicemembers should have the ability to reach their education
goals once they transition out of service. Making Chapter 33 the
functional default GI Bill is not only consistent with current data on
rates of use between the programs, but also the better option for the
vast majority of individuals. It's time we finally end this tax on
troops.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Gross, Natalie. Military Times. ``Trump signed the `Forever GI
Bill.' Here are 11 things you should know''. August 16, 2017.
Draft legislation, To increase the monthly housing stipend under the
Post-9/11 GI Bill for individuals who pursue programs of education
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
solely through distance learning on more than a half-time basis
This bill proposes to eliminate the 50 percent limit on the monthly
housing allowance (MHA) for student veterans attending an entirely
online program at more than half-time. As a matter of policy, SVA
supports affording veterans and their families the resources needed to
succeed in higher education. We appreciate the intent behind this bill
and hope to work with legislators and the Committee on continuing to
reduce barriers for student veterans. We maintain concerns that a
change in this policy without appropriate safeguards would incentivize
predatory schools to further target veterans and their families.
Removing this limit, coupled with the recent changes to the Post-9/
11 GI Bill MHA calculation that base the payment rate on the zip code
of the school provides a financial motivation for distance-learning
programs in high-MHA areas to seek out and prey upon student veterans
living in low-MHA areas.\20\ In a practical sense, if a student veteran
can enter similar online programs anywhere in the country, an outsized
MHA would be an attractive reason to choose one program over another.
Many low-quality distance-learning programs are likely to seize on this
change as an opportunity to maximize their enrollments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Education and Training. https://www.benefits.va.gov/
GIBILL/resources/benefits--resources/rates/ch33/
ch33rates080118.asp#HOUSING
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the existing higher education framework for
student veterans, it is easy to see how the chain of abusive and
predatory practices is given a new link. We will see distance-learning
programs incentivizing higher-MHA to lower-MHA student veterans whose
enrollment, resulting from the 90-10 loophole; this practice ultimately
grants programs access to even greater Title IV funds. In turn, this
will grow the bottom-line of these programs which, then provide further
resources for targeted recruitment of student veterans. The end result
is for bad actor programs having additional resources to repeat this
predatory cycle. This cycle of abuse and predation is not beneficial
for student veterans and their families, and we encourage the Committee
to investigate other ways to better serve our student veterans' housing
needs.
Draft legislation, To require that certain educational institutions
have letters of credit as a condition of approval for VA education
benefits
This bill proposes to require a letter of credit (LOCs) from
institutions of higher learning (IHLs) as a condition of approval for
participation in VA's educational assistance programs. SVA is in strong
support of this concept, and recommend several improvements to
strengthen the proposal. We believe VA should be afforded additional
authority to safeguard student veterans from institutions that display
poor financial health. VA seemingly lacks the authority and funding to
make all student veterans whole after a school closes, and is instead
limited to providing restitution for the semester of closure.\21\ This
stands in stark contrast to the Department of Education's \22\(ED)
restitution\23\ authorities\24\. This bill would allow VA to collect
funds from a failing institution, which is a time-tested model of
fiscal stewardship that SVA would be glad to see properly implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Education and Training. https://www.benefits.va.gov/
gibill/fgib/restoration.asp
\22\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration. Restoration of Benefits After School Closure of if a
School is Disapproved for GI Bill Benefits. https://
www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/fgib/restoration.asp
\23\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid.
In certain situations, you can have your Federal student loan forgiven,
canceled, or discharged. https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/
forgiveness-cancellation#false-certification
\24\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid.
Borrowers may be eligible for forgiveness of the Federal student loans
used to attend a school if that school misled them or engaged in other
misconduct in violation of certain laws. https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/
repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/borrower-defense
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge concerns related to the resource constraints as VA
in the potential development and maintenance of a financial monitoring
system for all schools participating in VA education programs. VA is
presently focused on numerous, substantial reforms of outdated
infrastructure and processes and adding this task onto the pile could
set the agency up for failure. We see this as an opportunity to
encourage greater collaboration between VA and ED. Instead of creating
new policies and procedures, duplicative of the ones ED has employed
effectively for years, we believe the agency would be better served by
utilizing ED's system to trigger its own enforcement mechanisms.
ED currently requires a letter of credit from an institution for
assorted reasons, including failing to meet financial benchmarks. The
LOCs assure the availability of at least 10 percent of the Federal
student aid received by the school. Ten percent was meant to be the
floor and not the benchmark. Schools operating under letters of credit
can continue participating in Title IV programs, but the letters
protect students and taxpayers if institutions are unable to cover
Federal student aid liabilities. ED may draw funds from the letter of
credit for various reasons, including reimbursing the department for
student refunds, loan cancellation costs, and teach-out expenses.
To achieve intent of this proposal, SVA believes it would be better
to have VA establish automatic triggers based on decisions ED makes
regarding a school's financial health. By acting alongside ED, VA's
enforcement authority is increased without adding a duplicative
monitoring requirement for VA, an agency that has little experience in
this area.
VA would have the option of expanding the list of automatic
triggers to include instances beyond LOCs, including Federal or state
law enforcement investigation or penalties against the school,
financial instability, low student graduation rate, high student
indebtedness, failure to obey VA reporting requirements, defaults on
lines of credit, and negative shareholder disclosures. If VA is
required to develop their own monitoring and evaluation standards, we
recommend that they include some of the recommendations from the GAO
2017 report on potential improvements to ED's financial monitoring
processes.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. ``Education Should
Address Oversight and Communication Gaps in Its Monitoring of the
Financial Condition of Schools.'' August 2017. https://www.gao.gov/
assets/690/686709.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft legislation, GI Bill Access to Career Credentials Act
This bill proposes authorizing GI Bill funding to be used for
licensing preparation courses. SVA supports giving VA the authority to
provide assistance for these tests, just as they currently do for
higher education tests.\26\ VA also requested this change in their
FY2020 Budget Request.\27\ We believe that bringing parity between
vocational and higher education preparatory courses is a positive,
commonsense step forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. 38 U.S. Code
Sec. ?3002. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/3002
\27\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits
Administration, Office of Budget, Annual Budget Submission FY2020.
https://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/
fy2020VAbudgetVolumeIsupplementalInformationAndAppendices.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To protect student veterans and be faithful stewards of GI Bill
resources, we also suggest adding guardrails around which preparatory
courses qualify under this new authority. Specifically, we recommend
adding language that requires qualifying preparatory courses to meet
the standards of state designated licensing boards or agencies that
seek to protect students from bad-actor schools. This is critical to
protecting our student veterans and we encourage this Committee to
adopt this small, but important adjustment.
Draft legislation, To amend title 38 United States Code to require
proprietary for-profit educational institutions to comply with
Federal revenue limits to participate in educational assistance
programs at VA
This proposed legislation would prohibit for-profit educational
institutions from participating in VA's educational assistance programs
unless more than ten percent of their revenue is generated from non-
federal sources. SVA, along with 36 other Veteran Service Organizations
(VSOs), sent a letter to congress earlier this year outlining our
policy priorities.\28\ Chief among them was closing the 90-10 loophole
in the Higher Education Reauthorization (HEA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Letter from Thirty-Seven VSOs to Congress sharing priorities
for Higher Education Act reauthorization, May 2, 2019. https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/t/
5cca11f91905f41be87648f5/1556746746801/
VSO+MSO+HEA+Priorities.FINAL.2May2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 90-10 rule is intended to prevent a proprietary institution
from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from the Federal
government. Essentially, it is a market viability test; if an
institution is providing a high-quality education it should be able to
recruit students willing to spend their own money to attend. This rule
is rooted in what was originally the 85-15 rule, a response to rife
predatory abuse of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944.\29\
However, a loophole exists in the rule: it does not count funds from VA
or DoD educational benefits as Federal funds. The predatory practices
this loophole incentivizes are well-documented and unacceptable.
Veterans and other American taxpayers deserve better than allowing the
bottom lines of institutions to prevail.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Skinner, Rebecca. ``Institutional Eligibility and the Higher
Education Act: Legislative History of the 90/10 Rule and Its Current
Status.'' January 2005. Congressional Research Service: Washington,
D.C., Retrieved from: http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/1904.
\30\ U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. ``For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the
Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success.'' July 2012. Washington
D.C. Retrieved from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
CPRT112SPRT74931/pdf/CPRT-112SPRT74931.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the spirit of the original intent of the 90-10 rule, SVA
strongly supports all VA and DoD education benefit funds be considered
Federal funds under the 90-10 rule. GI Bill funds are paid for by the
Federal government and should be considered as such. SVA supports the
intent of this proposal, but we believe there may be more effective
approaches to closing this loophole. The past few months have seen
significant progress on a bipartisan solution to the 90-10 loophole
through the HEA and we are hopeful that this encouraging progress
continues.
Creating and closing the loophole exclusively through VA
jeopardizes that. Also, we maintain concern about closing the loophole
solely through Title 38. As currently written, the bill appears to
offer a simple, clean fix for the 90-10 loophole. However, it affords
the risk of repeating the same mistake that led to the loophole in the
first place; a failure to bring all relevant stakeholders to the table
to produce a holistic solution. To strengthen the proposal, there
should be additional procedural detail addressing how the language
would function in application.
It is unclear whether the proposal applies only to new programs and
how currently approved programs will be reviewed for compliance, how it
will be enforced, and exactly when and how funding is shut off. By
contrast, the current system used at ED is much more explicit on these
topics. SVA remains open to creative solutions that seek to close the
90-10 loophole and we encourage congress to continue investigating ways
to make this happen while minimizing the risk of creating similar
issues in the future.
Draft legislation, Forever GI Bill Class Evaluation Act
This legislation proposes to delay GI Bill payments to schools
until fourteen days before a school term. As this bill makes clear in
Section 2, VA has an ongoing issue with overpayments made on behalf of
the GI Bill. The referenced Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report makes clear that this problem is significant, directly impacts
student veterans, and must be addressed.\31\ VA's methods of correcting
overpayments compounds the problem. VA claws back GI Bill overpayments
directly from students, even though the school received the tuition
money.\32\ In previous testimony, we outlined the 200,000 overpayment
notices VA sends out each year and the significant financial burden it
places on veterans and their families.\33\ SVA fully supports the
structural and procedural changes that must take place within VA to
prevent these overpayments from occurring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. ``Post 9/11 GI Bill:
Additional Actions Needed to Help Reduce Overpayments and Increase
Collections.'' October 2015. https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673230.pdf
\32\ Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. 38 U.S. Code
Sec. 3680. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/3680
\33\ Student Veterans of America. Testimony for Legislative Hearing
on the Topic of ``Pending Legislation'' May 22, 2019. Senate Committee
on Veterans' Affairs. https://www.veterans.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
5.22.19%20-%20SVA.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While SVA supports this bill's intent, we believe that mandating a
delay in GI Bill benefit payments might compound the VA's recent
inability to make timely benefit payments to students. We encourage the
Committee to continue having conversations with VA on the feasibility
of implementing a batch payment model like ED has been using for
decades. ED processes payments to schools prior to the start of the
semester based on historical enrollment data from previous years. It is
an effective process that allows schools and ED to operate without
jeopardizing the financial situation of schools or students.
We suggest studying the feasibility of incorporating lessons
learned from the Department and its use of batch payments as a
potential way of alleviating some of the front-end work VA must to do
certify both MHA payments and tuition payments. We acknowledge there
are foundational differences between how the ED and VA function, and
that batch payments may not be the correct solution, but greater cross-
agency communication and collaboration can still provide valuable
insight. Overpayments are a significant issue with the current model of
payment VA employs and SVA encourages congress and VA to continue
discussions on how best to serve our student veterans and educational
institutions while still meeting the needs of VA.
Draft legislation, To require that educational institutions abide by
Principles of Excellence as a condition of approval for purposes of
the educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs
This legislation proposes a requirement that educational
institutions adhere to Executive Order (EO) 13607, also known as the
Principles of Excellence (POE), in order to participate in VA's
educational assistance programs.\34\ SVA supports giving VA enforcement
authority to act when schools are not meeting standards that are meant
to protect student veterans. As adherence to POE is voluntary, VA lacks
sufficient authority to terminate educational benefits for bad actor
schools in violation of the principles. This proposal brings VA into
parity with ED and provides VA another tool to protect student veterans
when educational institutions are not up to standard.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Exec. Order No. 13607, 3 C.F.R. 248-252 (2013) https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2013-title3-vol1/pdf/CFR-2013-title3-
vol1.pdf
\35\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid,
Sec. 668.14 Program participation agreement. December 31, 1999. https:/
/ifap.ed.gov/regcomps/doc4072--bodyoftext.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of particular importance in executive order, it states that the POE
should ``allow servicemembers and reservists to be readmitted to a
program if they are temporarily unable to attend class or have to
suspend their studies due to service requirements, and take additional
steps to accommodate short absences due to service obligations,
provided that satisfactory academic progress is being made by the
servicemembers and reservists prior to suspending their studies''\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a significant point of contention and should be considered
heavily. Clarification of the principles in tandem with this additional
authority is necessary for the measure to be effective. We would also
encourage consideration of better delineated enforcement options when
an institution does not adhere to the Principles. Therefore, SVA
supports this proposal with some reservations.
Draft legislation, Student Veteran Empowerment Act of 2019
This legislation proposes several improvements to VA's educational
assistance programs, such as requiring an agreement to abide by the
POE, requiring monthly enrollment verification by student veterans, and
extending the period of no charge for student veterans affected by
school closure. SVA supports this bill, and we address additional
specific points for consideration below.
Section 2. Entitlement charge changes. We support this provision
and offer some additional feedback for consideration. Student veterans
affected by school closures are not protected in the same way title IV
students are, and this change is a positive step in the right
direction.\37\ Our recommendation would be to set a minimum number of
transferred credits that disqualify student veterans from having their
GI Bill benefits restored. This language sets that bar at a single
credit which is unnecessarily restrictive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid.
If your school closes while you're enrolled or soon after you withdraw,
you may be eligible for discharge of your Federal student loan. https:/
/studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/closed-
school
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3. Additional requirements for approval of institutions to
participate in VA's educational assistance programs. We support this
provision as an idea but have reservations with the language as
written. Similar to our comments on the POE, we have concerns with
legislating towards an EO instead of codifying the exact standards that
institutions should meet.
We believe there should be additional refinement with respect to
defining the reviewers and enforcement of the principles. If that
activity is delegated to State Approving Agencies (SAAs), we would like
to see that codified along with a matching increase in funding to
support such an important task. If SAAs are not intended to enforce the
principles, the legislation should clearly state who is.
Finally, upon the original release of this EO in 2012, there were
several issues raised by concerned groups, and it brought to light a
concerning difference between good actors and bad actors in the
veterans' education space.\38\ Schools concerned with adhering to the
letter and spirit of the EO had numerous clarifying questions to ask
while those institutions who were less concerned with details and more
concerned with signaling that they were complying rushed to sign up.
This bill seems as if it would incorporate many of the same issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ American Council on Education. Letter to Congress Re:
Executive Order 13607 - Establishing Principles of Excellence for
Educational Institutions Serving Service Members, Veterans, Spouses,
and Other Family Members. https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/
Letter-to-Obama-Administration-on-Principles-of-Excellence-for-Service-
Members,-Veterans-Education.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4. Oversight of educational institutions placed on
heightened cash monitoring status by ED. We support this section but
encourage congress to increase resources for State Approving Agencies
(SAAs) to match the increase in responsibilities. As we continue to add
tasks to the SAAs workload, we encourage congress to be mindful of
matching resources to responsibilities. Unfunded mandates cannot be
achieved, and we risk setting SAAs up to fail by requiring too much of
them without the financial undergirding they need for support.
Section 5. Mandatory enrollment verification. We support this
provision and humbly offer and additional recommendation. Overpayments
due to delays in VA updating a student's enrollment status are a
significant portion of annual overages and lead to student veterans
incurring debt unbeknownst to them which is later clawed back
aggressively.\39\ We fully support finding ways to improve the current
system to prevent such burdens being placed on our students. To this
end, we encourage reworking the language so that the burden of
verification lies on the institution and not the student. As VA pays
the school directly under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, it only makes sense
that tuition overpayments and verifications of enrollment should be
handled directly between the two institutions, without the student
veteran in the middle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. ``POST-9/11 GI BILL:
Additional Actions Needed to Help Reduce Overpayments and Increase
Collections.'' October 21, 2015. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are encouraged by this Committee's interest in finding ways to
improve the service and quality of benefits we offer to our veterans
and hope that continued conversations around the bills today will
provide avenues upon which to build consensus.
Draft legislation, To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize
State approving agencies to carry out outreach activities
This legislation clarifies language in title 38 to allow State
Approving Agencies (SAAs) to conduct outreach programs. In the roughly
70 years prior to 2016, SAAs routinely engaged in outreach programs to
educate our veterans about the benefits available to them. In 2016, VA
informed these agencies that outreach activities were not explicitly
established in statute and could no longer be supported. Since then,
SAAs have been limited in their ability to conduct outreach and
awareness programs and create new outreach materials. Data from the
National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA) shows
`outreach actions' declining by 90 percent since 2016 as result.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ National Association of State Approving Agencies, NASAA Annual
Report 2018. http://nasaa-vetseducation.com/getattachment/Home/NASAA-
2018-Annual-Report.pdf.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVA supports this bill, but within the context of SAAs maintaining
a primary focus on program evaluation. SAAs play an important role in
the approval and oversight of the higher education institutions that
serve our nation's veterans. Their mission is to safeguard quality
education and training opportunities for veterans through program
evaluation and monitoring, compliance training and review, outreach and
awareness, and more. And while the agencies' primary focus will always
be the evaluation and approval of educational institutions, their value
as liaisons to the broader public, military bases, educators, and
employers on the benefits of using the GI Bill cannot be understated.
We must be cognizant of the need to provide them with adequate
resources and authority to fully execute their mission. This is
particularly important in light of recent legislation and programs,
such as the Forever GI Bill, the VET TEC Program, and the VALOR Act.
Expanding the oversight responsibilities of SAAs, and many of the draft
bills under discussion today seeking to maintain a high level of
program quality and integrity.
The success of veterans in higher education is no coincidence or
surprise. Research consistently demonstrates this unique population of
non-traditional students is far outpacing their peers in many measures
of academic performance.\28\ Further, this success in higher education
begets success in careers, in communities, and promotes family
financial stability, holistic well-being, and provides the all-
volunteer force with powerful tools for recruitment and retention when
recruits know military service prepares them for success after service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Letter from Thirty-Seven VSOs to Congress sharing priorities
for Higher Education Act reauthorization, May 2, 2019. https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/556718b2e4b02e470eb1b186/t/
5cca11f91905f41be87648f5/1556746746801/
VSO+MSO+HEA+Priorities.FINAL.2May2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the Committee Members
for your time, attention, and devotion to the cause of veterans in
higher education.\41\ As always, we welcome your feedback and
questions, and we look forward to continuing to work with this
Committee, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the entire
congress to ensure the success of all generations of veterans through
education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Cate, C.A., Lyon, J.S., Schmeling, J., & Bogue, B.Y. (2017).
National Veteran Education Success Tracker: A Report on the Academic
Success of Student Veterans Using the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Student
Veterans of America, Washington, D.C., http://
nvest.studentveterans.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NVEST-Report--
FINAL.pdf.
Prepared Statement of Jeremy M. Villanueva
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify
at this legislative hearing of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee of
the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. As you know, DAV is a non-profit
veterans service organization comprised of more than one million
wartime service-disabled veterans that is dedicated to a single
purpose: empowering veterans to lead high-quality lives with respect
and dignity. DAV is pleased to offer our views on the bills under
consideration by the Subcommittee.
H.R. 561, Protecting Business Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2019
This legislation would correct a persistent problem in contracting
under the Veterans First Contracting Program (Vets First Program) by
directing the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to work with the
Office of the Inspector General to identify and penalize small
businesses who take advantage of the program, which is designed to
benefit veterans by utilizing ``pass through'' contracts.
The Vets First Program was created under Public Law 109-461 for
Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) and expanded the Service-
Disabled Veteran contracting program for VA procurements in order for
veteran business owners and the government to benefit mutually. The
program's purpose is to ensure that legitimately owned and controlled
VOSBs and Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) are
able to compete for VA VOSB and SDVOSB set-asides, are credited by VA's
large prime contractors for subcontract plan achievements, and help
stimulate the small business community and create growth for the
economy.
However, the GAO found persistent problems in contracting under the
Vets First Program of small business who take advantage of the program
which is designed to benefit veterans by utilizing ``pass through''
contracts.\1\ In this instance, so-called ``pass through'' contracts
occur when a small business wins its contract based on these designated
preferences and then subcontracts most of the work to a non-similarly
situated firm. These ``pass through'' contracts violate the principle
and rationale of these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694684.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill would provide parity between the Small Business Act and
Veterans First Contracting Program's ``Limitations on Subcontracting''
and provide clarity as the Small Business Administration and VA
implement joint regulations on SDVOSBs and VOSBs.
DAV supports this legislation in accordance with Resolution No.
302, which seeks and strongly supports the investigation, prevention
and monitoring controls and to ensure that fraud is aggressively
prosecuted and companies having committed fraud are suspended, debarred
or otherwise held accountable.
H.R. 1615, Verification Alignment and Service-disabled Business
Adjustment Act or the VA-SBA Act
This bill would move the VA's verification of Service-Disabled
Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) and Veteran-Owned Small
Businesses (VOSBs) responsibility to the Small Business Administration
(SBA). The SBA will therefore fully take over the certification of
SDVOSB & VOSBs government-wide and VA's separate verification program
will sunset.
Currently, SBA certifies small businesses that participate in most
Federal contracting preference programs, ensuring that only qualified
enterprises benefit from over $105 billion in annual small business
spending. The exception is SDVOSBs that are verified by VA to qualify
for VA contracts. These SDVOSBs are allowed, because of a disparity in
the law, to self-certify, which has led to years of fraud, waste, and
abuse. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted this in
their 2012 report on the SDVOSB programs when it stated, ``no action
has been taken by agencies to improve fraud-prevention controls.
Relying almost solely on firms' self-certification, the program
continues to lack controls to prevent fraud and abuse.''\2\ Inadequate
controls have allowed companies that are not owned and controlled by
service-disabled veterans to game the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-697
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VA-SBA Act seeks to address this problem by instituting an
affirmative certification requirement for SDVOSBs throughout the
Federal government, to be implemented and maintained by the SBA. To
accomplish this, the Act transfers responsibility for certification
from the VA to the SBA and eliminates the option to self-certify.
Finally, this bill guarantees that no self-certified SDVOSB will be
excluded from a contracting opportunity if the SBA is slow to process
its certification application, and preserves the unique VOSB
contracting preference in VA.
DAV supports this legislation in accordance with our Resolution No.
303, calling for simplification of the verification process for VOSBs
and SDVOSBs and No. 302, which seeks and strongly supports prevention
and monitoring controls over the SDVOSB program.
H.R. 2227, Gold Star Spouses and Spouses of Injured Servicemembers
Leasing Relief Expansion Act of 2019
This bill would authorize spouses of servicemembers who incur a
catastrophic injury or illness or die while in military service to
terminate leases of premises and motor vehicles.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue and does not
take a position on this bill's passage.
H.R. 2618
This bill would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to
provide a guarantee of residency for registration of businesses of
spouses of servicemembers and to improve the ability of military
spouses to transfer their occupational licenses from state to state.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue and does not
take a position on this bill's passage.
H.R. 2924, Housing for Women Veterans Act
The Housing for Women Veterans Act (H.R. 2924) would reauthorize
the Supportive Services for Veterans Families (SSVF) Grant Program and
provide funding of $400 million for fiscal years 2020 through 2022.
While this funding level is $20 million more than funding authorized
for 2019, the bill would earmark all additional funds ($20 million) for
programs directed at meeting the needs of women veterans. In addition,
the bill calls for a gaps analysis report that would identify areas in
which current programs are failing to meet the needs of homeless and
precariously housed women which may yield important information.
SSVF is a valuable program that concentrates on preventing very low
income veterans and their families from becoming homeless. While
research is ongoing to identify the housing and other outcomes of this
program, the relatively small grants (on average about $2,500 per
veteran household) can make the difference between a veteran's family
remaining housed and living on the streets-a far more expensive and
intractable problem to address.
DAV supports the SSVF programs and appreciates that this bill would
ensure that additional funding is directed at improving services for
women veterans who have increased risk factors for homelessness in
addition to often being the sole parents of dependent children. Based
on DAV Resolution Nos. 019, which supports enhanced services for women
veterans, and 291, calling for sufficient funding to improve services
for homeless veterans, we offer our strong support for this bill.
H.R. 2934, GI Bill Access to Career Credentials Act
Currently, VA pays only the test costs for licensing and/or
certification for a field of employment, or up to $2,000 for each test.
Payment is issued after you submit proof of payment to VA. However,
costs for preparatory courses, registration and processing fees
connected with obtaining a license or certification are not
reimbursable.
This legislation amends title 38, United States Code, to authorize
the use of educational assistance under chapter 33 and 35 of that title
to pay for preparatory courses for licenses and certification
examinations.
While DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue, we
believe that providing added assistance by helping pay for these costs
in attaining licenses or certifications for new career is beneficial to
the service-disabled veteran, their survivors, and dependents, and we
have no objection to its favorable consideration.
Draft Bill, authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist blind
veterans who have not lost use of a leg in acquiring specially adapted
housing
VA provides grants to servicemembers and veterans with certain
permanent and total service-connected disabilities to help purchase or
construct an adapted home, or modify an existing home to accommodate a
disability. Under title 38, United States Code, Sec. 2101, the
Secretary may assist a disabled veteran described in acquiring suitable
housing with special fixtures or movable facilities made necessary by
the nature of the veteran's disability. An eligible veteran must have
loss or loss of use of bilateral lower extremities or must have
blindness in both eyes, light perception only, and must have loss or
loss of use of one lower extremity.
The discussion draft would redefine the eligibility criteria. For
those veterans with service-connected blindness, they would no longer
be required to have this disability in combination with loss or loss of
use of a lower extremity. This would expand the current criteria and
allow veterans with service-connected blindness to live in an
environment specially adapted to their visual impairment.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue; however, we
believe this would provide a much needed benefit to visually impaired
veterans and we would have no objection to its favorable consideration.
Draft Bill, Forever GI Bill Class Evaluation Act
This bill would prohibit payment of educational assistance under
the Post-9/11 GI Bill prior to 14 days before the first day of the
quarter, semester, or term, and would prohibit payment to an individual
who withdraws from a program of education during the first 14 days of
the quarter, semester, or term.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue and does not
take a position on this bill's passage.
Draft Bill, the VA Economic Hardship Report-a bill to direct the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to study the link between certain
economic factors and veteran suicides
This draft legislation would require that VA study associations
between veterans' economic resources and their risk of suicide. It
would require the Secretary to identify some numbers that are already
routinely estimated, such as the number of homeless veterans, which is
now determined by an annual ``point in time'' count, in addition to
other counts such as the numbers of veterans who live in poverty, and
those who are food or housing insecure, which are now estimated based
on census data. VA would also be required to report the number of
veterans who have attempted suicide or committed suicide and who, at
that time were homeless, living in poverty or known to be food
insecure.
DAV is aware that homelessness is a major risk factor for suicide,
but socio-economic consequences in addition to suicide may be
symptomatic of underlying causes such as unresolved medical disability,
mental health or substance abuse problem and a failure to assist
veterans with readjustment after deployment. These problems can often
lead to a ``cycle of decline,'' including family dissolution and loss
of employment in addition to homelessness. Without exploring these
causal factors, determining ``links'' between suicides and economic
consequences may overlook the actual root causes of homelessness and
identify confounded associations (for example, it may conclude that
veterans commit suicide because they are food insecure when untreated
PTSD and substance abuse may lead to job loss or family dissolution,
which in turn causes many adverse economic consequences that may
ultimately lead to suicidal ideation or suicide).
We would also hope that any future studies would take these factors
into account as well as identify veterans by sex and racial or ethnic
background in order for VA to better understand any gender differences
or specific links that may be disproportionately affecting these
veteran subpopulations.
DAV does not have a resolution calling for this study, but has no
objection to its favorable consideration.
Draft Bill, to require that certain educational institutions have
letters of credit as a condition of approval for purposes of the
educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs
This legislation would require any institution that receives
tuition or under the GI Bill or Survivors' and Dependents Educational
Assistance (Chapter 35) programs to have a letter of credit as a
condition of approval for those funds. Said letter of credit would need
to show proof that a financial institution has provided a financial
guarantee to the educational institution that ensures that if that
institution closes, not less than 10 percent of the funds received as
tuition or fees will be payable to the VA and that the educational
institution has such amounts in an escrow account for such purposes.
DAV does not have a resolution that speaks to this issue; however,
service-disabled veterans, their survivors and dependents, should not
have to worry about the financial stability of an educational
institution before they enroll for classes to better their economic
outlook. This legislation would require an institution to prove it can
reimburse the VA for tuition and fees if it closes prior to receiving
those funds and we have no objection to its favorable consideration.
Draft Bill, Legal Services for Homeless Veterans Act
This bill would authorize VA to provide grants or enter into
cooperative agreements with community entities to provide legal
services to veterans experiencing homelessness and veterans who are at
risk for becoming homeless within appropriated funds. It also requires
a biennial report to Congress to include the number of homeless
veterans assisted, a description of the legal services provided and
operational and cost-effectiveness of the services rendered.
In its most recent CHALENG report (2018), VA acknowledges that
those needs homeless veterans and their advocates are most likely to
describe as ``met'' are those directly provided through VA, while unmet
needs tend to be met through community partners. Veterans' needs for
legal assistance for various issues are persistently identified through
the annual homeless survey. This year male homeless veterans identified
legal assistance in five different areas (child support (#3),
prevention of eviction or foreclosure (#6), restoration of driver's
license (#7), outstanding warrants and fines (#8), and also discharge
upgrades (#9) among their 10 highest unmet needs. Female homeless
veterans identified legal assistance in three different areas
(including child support (#7), prevention of eviction or foreclosure
(#9) and discharge upgrades (#10)) within their top 10 unmet needs.
These legal issues are often significant barriers in obtaining
employment, reuniting families, maintaining or obtaining permanent
housing or seeking benefits or child support to stabilize family
income.
DAV supports this draft legislation in accordance with DAV
Resolution No. 291, calling for Congress to fund grants to provide
health and supportive services to homeless veterans.
H.R. 716, Homeless Veterans Legal Services Act
Like Congressman Panetta's draft bill above, H.R. 716-the Homeless
Veterans Legal Services Act addresses homeless veterans' unmet needs
for legal services, but does so by authorizing VA to fund a portion of
costs for legal services delivered through community partners (subject
to available funds). This measure focuses on legal services related to
housing such as eviction defense, foreclosure and land-lord tenant
cases; family law issues to include: child support issues, divorce,
estate planning, and family reconciliation; and criminal defense
matters such as outstanding warrants, fines, and driver's license
revocation.
DAV supports this draft legislation in accordance with DAV
Resolution No. 291, calling for Congress to fund grants to provide
health and supportive services to homeless veterans but would recommend
that the Committee authorize appropriations to make funding available
for this and the draft bill, Legal Services for Homeless Veterans Act
to ensure other programs for homeless veterans are fully funded.
Draft Bill, to require that educational institutions abide by
Principles of Excellence as a condition of approval for purposes of the
educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs
This bill would require a State approving agency, or the Secretary
when acting in the role of the State approving agency, to disapprove a
course of education provided by an educational institution if that
institution has not agreed to abide by the Principles of Excellence or
has violated said principles.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue and does not
take a position on this bill's passage.
Draft Bill, to authorize State approving agencies to carry out outreach
activities
This bill would authorize State approving agencies to carry out
outreach activities using amounts otherwise authorized to be
appropriated. No additional amounts are to be authorized to be
appropriated to carry out these activities.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue and does not
take a position on this bill's passage.
Draft Bill, authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to collect
overpayments of specially adapted housing assistance
The discussion draft would amend title 38, United States Code,
Sec. 2102, which provides limitations on furnished assistance of
grants to servicemembers and veterans with certain permanent and total
service-connected disabilities to help purchase or construct an adapted
home, or modify an existing home to accommodate a disability. Whenever
the Secretary finds that an overpayment has been made to an individual
as a result of breach of contract or administrative error, the amount
would be considered a liability of such individual to the United
States.
The individuals are defined as a veteran who applies for
assistance, an owner or seller of real estate, a builder, contractor,
supplier, tradesperson corporation, partnership or person associated
with the delivery of assistance. It further defines said individuals as
an attorney, escrow agent, or financial institution that receives or
holds escrow funds and also includes a surviving spouse, heir,
assignee, or successor of interest in the definition.
We understand the intent of this draft and that it is a reasonable
expectation that recipients of overpayments are required to repay
debts; however, it is unreasonable that a veteran or surviving spouse
should be responsible for debts caused by a VA administrative error.
Moreover, any recouping of overpayments from a veteran or surviving
spouse should not place them in financial hardship.
In accord with DAV Resolution No. 172, DAV urges this Subcommittee
amend this legislation to ensure there are limitations in the amount of
monies recouped from a veteran and surviving spouse so as not to
impoverish them, and overpayment debts created at the fault of VA be
waived by the VA.
Draft Bill, require proprietary for-profit educational institutions to
comply with Federal revenue limits to participate in educational
assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs
This bill would prohibit the Secretary, or a State approving agency
from approving a course of education offered by a proprietary for-
profit educational institution unless the institution derives not less
than ten percent of such institution's revenues from sources other than
Federal funds.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue and does not
take a position on this bill's passage.
Draft Bill, extend the time period under which an election must be made
for entitlement to educational assistance under the All-Volunteer
Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs
This bill would remove any time period restrictions on a
servicemember's ability to elect to receive educational benefits under
the All-Volunteer Educational Assistance Program.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue and does not
take a position on this bill's passage.
Draft Bill, Student Veteran Empowerment Act of 2019
This bill would make improvements to the educational assistance
programs of the VA, to include Chapter 35 of title 38, United States
Code. These improvements include prohibiting the VA from charging
against an enrollee's time-period or entitlement if they cannot
transfer credits from a disapproved program of education, requires
educational institutions seeking approval to participate in a program
under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and has agreed to
abide by the Principles of Excellence under Executive Order 13607,
increasing oversight over education institutions, and verifying
enrollment for each individual enrolled in a course or program of
education and is receiving Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Benefits.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue but we would
not object to its favorable consideration, as it would benefit
dependents and survivors of veterans whose death was due to a service-
connected disability or of a veteran whose service-connected disability
has been rated by VA to be permanent and total.
Draft Bill, increase the monthly housing stipend under the Post-9/11
Educational Assistance Program for individuals who pursue programs of
education solely through distance learning on more than a half-time
basis
This bill seeks to increase the monthly housing amount received by
those enrolled in a course or program of education under the Post-9/11
GI Bill on more than a half-time basis through distance learning
solely.
DAV does not have a resolution that addresses this issue and does
not take a position on this bill's passage.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
Prepared Statement of Timothy ``Tim'' McMahon
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee:
My name is Tim McMahon, a U.S. Air Force Veteran representing
Triangle Tech, Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU) and
Veterans for Career Education (VCE). Before commenting on the pending
legislation that has the potential to impact career schools and the
veterans attending these institutions, I would like to offer some
background on the three groups I represent.
I serve as president of Triangle Tech, a nationally accredited
career and technical school with campuses in the following locations in
Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh, Erie, Greensburg, DuBois, Sunbury, and
Bethlehem. We pride ourselves in delivering high-quality career
training at a fast pace. We offer career programs in Computer-Aided
Design and Drafting (CADD) with Additive Manufacturing & 3D Printing
Technology; Maintenance Electricity & Construction Technology;
Refrigeration, Heating, Ventilation, & Air Conditioning Technology
(HVAC-R); Carpentry & Construction Technology; and Welding &
Fabrication Technology. Veterans can earn an associate degree in a
skilled program of study in just 16 months and enter the workforce
immediately. That allows veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill to save
the rest of their benefits for follow-on study or additional education
elsewhere.
All students that attend Triangle Tech have free repeat privileges:
If at any time prior to graduation, circumstances result in course
failure, we allow students to repeat that course tuition-free. We also
provide free refresher privileges to graduates. Students and veteran
graduates may come back and refresh their skills or update them on the
latest technology at no cost. To help students and student veterans
continue their education, we have credit transfer agreements with
certain public and private nonprofit colleges and universities. For
example, we have credit transfer agreements with Slippery Rock
University, Point Park University, Seton Hill College, and California
University of Pennsylvania.
I also serve on the board of directors for Career Education
Colleges and Universities (CECU), a national association of career,
technical and trade schools consisting of nearly 500 campus locations
across the nation. These schools are working diligently to meet the
demands of the American workforce by providing skilled education that
leads to fulfilling careers. The programs offered at CECU schools
include nursing, commercial truck driving, cranes and heavy equipment,
gunsmithing, hardhat divers and underwater welding, barbering and
cosmetology, aviation technicians, automotive technology and
cybersecurity, among many others. In a recent Gallup study, 71% of
Veterans and servicemembers that graduated from CECU member
institutions said they were satisfied with their education and 76% said
their degree/certificate is related to their work.\1\ Additionally, we
published a book of over 300 veteran success stories.\2\ This year, we
also updated a best practices guide for serving military and veteran
students. Our schools remain committed to providing career-relevant
education to those in and out of uniform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Gallup, Toward a Better Future: Exploring Outcomes of Attending
Career Colleges and Universities, January 15, 2019, http://
www.career.org/uploads/7/8/1/1/78110552/cecu--positive--outcomes--of--
career--education--1.10.19--final.pdf
\2\ CECU, The Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefit (Veteran Success Stories),
http://vets4careered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/CECU--Veterans--
6x9--NEW.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, I am excited to be among the nearly 100 veterans that flew
from across the country to Washington D.C., just before Memorial Day,
and helped to found Veterans for Career Education (VCE). We founded VCE
to support the right of veterans to use their earned education
benefits, like the GI Bill, to gain career skills at the college or
institution of their choice. We fundamentally believe that education
policy should not dictate where veterans use their earned education
benefits. Now, VCE is engaged in a Let Vets Choose Tour Across America
at over 20 career schools in more than 10 states. Veterans that are
students, graduates, faculty, and staff are organizing to combat overly
broad statements about taxpaying schools. The notion that credentials
from these schools are worthless or that the entire sector is predatory
is demeaning to veterans and undermines the value of career-oriented
education. VCE and the Let Vets Choose Tour will showcase why veterans
choose career schools and it will give a voice to student veterans that
are too often overlooked. We look forward to sharing the views of
veterans from these tour stops.
Below are the views of CECU on pending legislation unless otherwise
noted.
A draft bill to require proprietary for-profit educational institutions
to comply with Federal revenue limits to participate in educational
assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Changing the 90/10 rule to include military and veteran education
benefits, like the GI Bill, in the 90 side does not help to protect
military veterans. It takes away a veteran's right to choose where they
use their earned education benefits. Analysis conducted by NDP
Analytics found that including military and veteran education benefits
in the numerator of the 90/10 rule may adversely impact upwards of 100
schools and over 100,000 student veterans and servicemembers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NDP Analytics collected Title IV and total revenue data from
the Department of Education 90/10 database (Jul 2016 - Jun 2017), GI
Bill and Yellow Ribbon Award data from the VA's GI Comparison Tool (Oct
2016 - Sept 2017), and Tuition Assistance program data from the
Department of Defense TA DECIDE database (Oct 2016 - Sept 2017). We
removed institutions from our analysis that have since closed based on
the Department of Education Office of Financial Aid Closed School
Reports. We manually updated one large institutions enrollment numbers
based on a noticeable discrepancy in data provided from a Federal
database. Institutions with multiple campuses are counted individually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The entire notion of closing the so-called ``90/10 loophole'' is
insulting to veterans attending career institutions in the private
sector. Navy Veteran, career school graduate and VCE Ambassador James
Lillback recently authored an oped in the Tennessean saying, ``The
critics of career schools want to manipulate a formula known as 90/10
to restrict how much GI Bill dollars go to these schools. This makes no
sense. If a career school is doing a good job of educating veterans,
taking away the right of veterans to gain job-ready skills at the
school of their choice only hurts a veteran's ability to successfully
transition into civilian life.''\4\ James is an employed commercial
truck driver in Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ James Lillback, Guest Columnist, The Tennessean, Veterans
should use GI Bill for any education they choose- Opinion, July 10,
2019, https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2019/07/10/veterans-gi-
bill-should-used-any-education/1634169001/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate opinion piece published in Military Times, two
military veterans said proposals to change 90/10 ``are not aimed at
protecting the military community. If that were truly the motivation,
then the rule would apply to all colleges and universities.''\5\
Analysis shows that more than 400 public and private nonprofit colleges
and universities would fail an expanded 90/10 formula.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Michael Dakduk and Larry Goerzen, Military Times, Opinion:
Veterans Defend Right to Attend Career Colleges, June 20, 2019, https:/
/www.militarytimes.com/opinion/2019/06/20/opinion-veterans-defend-
right-to-attend-career-colleges/
\6\ Career Education Colleges and Universities, Press Release, Over
400 Public and Nonprofit Colleges Would Fail the 90/10 Rule, May 20,
2019,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A separate study by financial aid expert Mark Kantrowitz found that
``Most public colleges would not be able to comply with the 90/10 rule
if it applied to them, especially if state appropriations and grants
were included in the percentage of revenue from government aid.''\7\ He
goes onto say that ``the 90/10 rule is ineffective at measuring
educational quality. Instead, it depends heavily on the demographics of
each college's student population, measuring ability to pay more than
willingness to pay.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Mark Kantrowitz, Edvisors, Consequences of the 90/10 Rule,
August 19, 2013, https://www.edvisors.com/media/files/student-aid-
policy/20130819-90-10-rule.pdf
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supporters of changing the 90/10 rule maintain that veterans are
being targeted and aggressively recruited. It is essential for this
Subcommittee to recall testimony in 2012 by Dr. Jennifer Steele.\9\ She
said that given the negative attention by the media on for-profit
schools, ``one might assume it is the schools' aggressive and targeted
recruiting practices that are luring'' veterans into these
institutions. Put another way, ``naive veterans are being tricked''
into enrolling at these schools. Her research, however, uncovered a
very different story.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Jennifer L. Steele, RAND Corporation, Military Veterans'
Experiences in For-Profit Higher Education, May 16, 2012, https://
www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CT376.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Steele said, ``Contrary to the prevailing image of veterans as
undiscerning consumers of higher education, the veterans, Reservists,
active duty servicemembers, and family members with whom we spoke
described thoughtful deliberations about their choice of institutions.
Students in for-profit colleges reported a number of rationales for
their institutional decisions.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The top reasons for attending career schools in the private sector:
tuition being covered by the GI Bill; the schools had adult-oriented,
career-focused programs with flexible schedules; and the ability to
transfer military experience to academic credits.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Steele brought up an important point in her remarks before this
Subcommittee years ago when she testified. There is a suggestion that
many veterans are being misled or tricked into enrolling at taxpaying
career schools. This is flat out wrong. Army special forces guard
member and advocate for veterans, Daniel Elkins, recently wrote an oped
in the Hill saying, ``As a country, we need to stop perpetuating the
demeaning idea that we are `broken' or in need of special guidance and
protection. Restricting where and how veterans use our earned benefits
disrespects the sacrifice and effort we made to earn it.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Hill, We must support veterans and not politicize their
education, April 1, 2019, https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/
education/436809-we-must-support-veterans-and-not-politicize-their-
education
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed bill denies the right of veterans to use their earned
education benefits at the career school of their choice. Veterans for
Career Education (VCE) remains opposed to policies like modifying 90/10
since it restricts choice for veterans. CECU remains opposed. As a
veteran that takes great joy in supporting other veterans at Triangle
Tech, I don't want to see veterans denied the opportunity to enroll at
career schools. Please consider the drastic impact of changing 90/10
before advancing this bill.
A draft bill to require that educational institutions abide by
Principles of Excellence as a condition of approval for purposes of
the educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes.
Making Principles of Excellence (POE) a requirement as a condition
of approval for VA education benefits is not problematic for CECU and
our members. According to the Department of Veterans Affair's data, 87%
of GI Bill students are enrolled at institutions that voluntarily
comply with the Principles of Excellence already. Our members will
embrace POE as we have already done.
Additionally, this explicitly calls for ending fraudulent and
aggressive recruiting by making POE law. It also expands on limiting
high-pressure recruitment tactics. Noticeably different than the 90/10
bill, this draft applies to all colleges and universities. If this
legislation were to advance, proposals around 90/10 become even more
questionable. After all, proponents of changing the 90/10 rule contend
that veterans are targeted through aggressive recruiting and marketing.
This draft bill, unlike the 90/10 draft bill, directly addresses the
issue.
The Student Veteran Empowerment Act of 2019.
CECU fully supports veterans retaining their earned education
benefits if they are unable to transfer their credits from a program
that is disapproved. The provisions regarding additional oversight
remain appropriate so long as they continue to apply to all sectors of
higher education and are enforced uniformly. There must be objectivity
in oversight.
A draft bill to increase the monthly housing stipend under the Post-9/
11 Educational Assistance Program for individuals who pursue
programs of education solely through distance learning on more than
a half-time basis.
Veterans for Career Education (VCE) supports the right of veterans
to use their earned education benefits at any type of approved
institution or program of their choice. Student veterans that are
enrolled exclusively through distance learning earned the same benefit
as those enrolled at brick and mortar schools. CECU remains supportive
of this draft bill.
A draft bill to provide for a requirement relating to the timing of the
payment of educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for
other purposes.
According to the 2015 GAO report, most GI Bill overpayments were
from changes in student enrollment including dropped classes or
withdrawals.\13\ A small percentage of GI Bill overpayments were due to
school reporting or VA processing errors.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Highlights of GAO-16-42, a report to the Ranking Member,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate,
October 2015, https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673231.pdf
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We understand the need to prevent or mitigate overpayments. We
believe in finding a common-sense solution to this issue. We would
appreciate some more time to discuss with our members how the change in
timing related to the payment of educational assistance may impact
institutions and veterans. Conceptionally, we support the premise of
this draft bill.
A draft bill to authorize the use of educational assistance under
chapter 33 of that title to pay for preparatory courses for
professional licenses and certifications, and for other purposes.
We support veterans being able to use their earned benefits for
preparatory courses. Most of our members have short career programs
that allow veterans to save much of their GI Bill for additional
education and training. Authorizing veterans to pay for preparatory
courses sets them up for continued success in gaining licenses and
certifications.
A draft bill to require that certain educational institutions have
letters of credit as a condition of approval for purposes of the
educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes.
Earlier this year, the Education Department- as well as 16 other
stakeholder groups including a representative for military veterans -
negotiated new regulations that would help mitigate precipitous school
closures. We are pleased this negotiated rulemaking Committee
unanimously agreed on regulatory language in this important area.
Last month, postsecondary institutions received additional guidance
on recently implemented regulations that make changes to financial
responsibility provisions.\15\ Meanwhile, we are waiting for new
regulations that seek to address financial responsibility and letters
of credit.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Office of Postsecondary Education, Compliance with the 2016
Borrower Defense to Repayment Regulations Questions and Answers,
https://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/060319Comp2016BD2RypmtRegsQandA.html
\16\ Federal Register (Education Department), Student Assistance
General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family
Education Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
Program, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/31/2018-
15823/student-assistance-general-provisions-federal-perkins-loan-
program-federal-family-education-loan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We ask that this Subcommittee and Congress allow proposed
regulations at the Department of Education to become finalized before
acting on additional requirements that may be duplicative or exacerbate
a problem this draft bill seeks to address-precipitous school closures.
Consider this: If we were to require a school already at financial risk
to secure two separate letters of credit - one with each Department -
we may end up causing such an institution to close simply because they
cannot obtain two letters of credit for the same institution.
Three years ago, we offered an alternative solution to the issue of
abrupt school closures. We convened a taskforce of leaders from our
membership to make recommendations for Reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act. We called upon the Department to take steps to
prioritize keeping students in school and on a path to completion of
their degrees. In doing so, our membership even volunteered to
contribute $5 per student enrolled to fund expertise within the
Department Education to manage at-risk schools up through and
concluding with the possible transfer of ownership and management to a
new entity with both sound finances and quality programs.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU), CECU Offers
Innovative Road Map to Modernize & Connect HEA to Jobs, https://
www.career.org/uploads/7/8/1/1/78110552/cecu--hea--launch--memo.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) model for
banks. The FDIC identifies an institution at financial risk for
continued operations. It then begins working with that bank and
eventually transitions ownership from one entity to a new entity with
little to no interruption of services for its customers.\18\ We need to
get to this same place with colleges and universities. And it starts by
establishing within the Department expertise that professionally work
with schools to transition ownership and operations to protect the
students currently enrolled in their academic programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ FDIC, When a Bank Fails - Facts for Depositors, Creditors, and
Borrowers, https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/payment.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, please consider the shared responsibility between members
of the current regulatory triad and the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) and be cautious not to blur those lines by imposing on any one
entity, including the VA, responsibilities beyond their expertise and
intended role.
Conclusion
Thank you for inviting us to share our views with this
Subcommittee. We welcome the opportunity to continue the conversation
and find practical solutions to issues impacting military veterans and
their families.
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA (PVA)
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
you for the opportunity to submit our views on pending legislation
impacting the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that is before the
Subcommittee. No group of veterans understand the full scope of
benefits and care provided by VA better than PVA's members-veterans who
have incurred a spinal cord injury or disorder. Several of these bills
will help to ensure veterans receive much needed aid and support. PVA
provides comment on the following bills included in today's hearing.
H.R. 561, the ``Protecting Business Opportunities for Veterans Act of
2019"
This pending legislation requires participants in the Vets First
Program to certify that they are performing the required percentage of
work and directs VA to refer suspected violators to the Office of the
Inspector General for investigation. It also directs the VA Secretary
to consider whether existing administrative and criminal penalties for
fraudulent representation would apply in each case. PVA supports this
effort to instill parity between veteran-owned small businesses and
other small businesses that enter into procurement contracts with the
Federal government.
H.R. 1615, the ``Verification Alignment and Service-Disabled Business
Adjustment Act''
PVA supports this legislation which would transfer the
responsibility of certifying Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small
Businesses (SDVOSBs) and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs) from VA
to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Over the past few years,
considerable progress has been made streamlining rules and regulations
for SBA and VA. Work still remains to rectify differences in the
certification process between the two agencies (each one has their own)
to eliminate confusion and ensure that contracts are only awarded to
companies that are truly deserving of them. SBA's successful employment
of certify.sba.gov uniquely places them in a better position to
assimilate accreditation tasks currently being performed by VA's Center
for Verification and Evaluation (VA CVE). Through this legislation,
self-certification would be eliminated and the integrity of the SDVOSB
and VOSB programs would be enhanced through the use of SBA as the sole
certifying agency.
H.R. 2227, the ``Gold Star Spouses and Spouses of Injured
Servicemembers Leasing Relief Expansion Act of 2019"
PVA believes the same protections available to widows and widowers
through the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) should be provided
to the spouses of servicemembers who sustain a catastrophic injury or
illness. We support H.R. 2227 which extends home and automobile leasing
protections in the SCRA, allowing the spouses of catastrophically
injured or ill servicemembers to terminate property leases and
automobile leases. Spouses of servicemembers who have sustained a
catastrophic injury or illness should not have to worry about the costs
of terminating their residential and automotive leases, but instead, be
able to focus on the care of their disabled servicemembers.
H.R. 2924, the ``Housing for Women Veterans Act''
VA's Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program awards
grants to private nonprofit organizations and consumer cooperatives
that provide supportive services to very low-income veteran families
living in or transitioning to permanent housing. The Housing for Women
Veterans Act would reauthorize funding for the SSVF grant program at
$400 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 through FY 2022 and require that
at least $20 million goes to organizations that have a focus on helping
women veterans and their families. H.R. 2924 also requires the VA
Secretary to analyze existing VA programs that aid homeless or
precariously housed women veterans to identify areas where these
programs may be failing them.
Women veterans are at least twice as likely as their nonveteran
counterparts to become homeless. They are also more likely to be a
single parent with at least one dependent. PVA supports this effort to
sustain an extremely valuable program, along with its targeted funding
directed toward improving services for women veterans who have
increased risk factors for homelessness.
H.R. 2934, the ``GI Bill Access to Career Credentials Act''
VA pays only the test costs for licensing and/or certification for
a field of employment, or up to $2,000 for each test. Payment is issued
after you submit proof of payment to VA. The costs of preparatory
courses as well as registration and processing fees connected with
obtaining a license or certification are not reimbursable.
PVA supports H.R. 2934 which amends Title 38 to allow the use of
educational assistance programs under Chapter 33 to pay for preparatory
courses for licenses and certification examinations. We believe
veterans should be allowed to use their earned education benefits to
pay for these courses and other requirements to help them transition to
the civilian sector and/or prepare for a new career.
Discussion Draft, the ``VA Economic Hardship Report Act''
This draft legislation directs the VA Secretary to compile data and
subsequently study the link between certain economic factors and
suicide. Suicide is a complex issue with a multitude of contributing
factors so examining known causal factors like unemployment and
homelessness could be beneficial in reducing the rates of suicide and
attempted suicide among veterans. We support this legislation but
believe that veterans could be even better served if the study examined
all known risk factors, their variance among different groups (e.g.,
disability status, age group, race, gender) and protective factors that
could be reinforced to insulate veterans from the risk of suicide.
H.R. 716, the ``Homeless Veterans Legal Services Act''
H.R. 716 authorizes the VA Secretary to enter into partnerships
with public and private entities to provide legal services to homeless
veterans and veterans at risk of homelessness so long as funds are
available. It focuses on legal services related to housing such as
eviction defense, foreclosure, and landlord-tenant cases; family law
issues to include child support issues, divorce, estate planning, and
family reconciliation; and criminal defense matters such as outstanding
warrants, fines, and driver's license revocation.
The lack of such legal services accounted for four of the top 10
unmet needs for all military veterans, according to a 2018 Project
CHALENG (Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and
Networking Groups) survey by VA.\1\ Clearly the need for these services
exist and we support this legislation but feel strongly that the
Subcommittee should make certain funds are available by authorizing
them for this and similar kinds of programs. Furthermore, VA should
also support pro bono services offered by law school clinics and other
similar entities that want to assist veterans with these services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Community Homelessness Assessment, Local Education and
Networking Groups (CHALENG) https://www.va.gov/HOMELESS/docs/CHALENG-
2018-factsheet-508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Draft, the ``Legal Services for Homeless Veterans Act''
This proposed draft legislation compliments H.R. 716 by authorizing
VA to provide grants or enter into cooperative agreements with
community entities to provide legal services to veterans experiencing
homelessness and veterans who are at risk for becoming homeless within
appropriated funds. It further requires VA to submit a biennial report
to Congress on the effectiveness of this program, including the number
of veterans who were assisted and the types of services that were
provided. Again, as indicated by VA's 2018 Project CHALENG survey, the
need for these services are clear but we call on Congress to take the
necessary actions to ensure proper funding for them is available if
this legislation is approved. Also, VA should support pro bono services
where available.
Discussion Draft, to ``Authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
Collect Overpayments of Specially Adapted Housing Assistance''
This draft legislation amends section 2102 of Title 38 to require
that whenever the Secretary finds an overpayment of specially adapted
housing assistance has been made to a person as the result of a breach
of contract or administrative error it should be repaid to the Federal
government. As defined in this legislation, a person may be a veteran
who applies for assistance; an owner or seller of real estate, a
builder, contractor, supplier, tradesperson, corporation, partnership,
or person related to or associated with the delivery of assistance; or
an attorney, escrow agent, or financial institution that receives or
holds escrow funds. It further defines a person as a surviving spouse,
heir, assignee, or successor of interest to any of these previously
described persons.
We agree that it is reasonable to expect the repayment of an
overpayment. However, neither veterans nor their surviving spouses
should ever be held responsible for a debt caused by VA's error. This
legislation should be amended to add a requirement that neither
veterans nor their surviving spouses will be held liable in that
circumstance. Furthermore, the waiver provisions in (f)(4) should be
amended to include the veteran's surviving spouse as being eligible for
a waiver from VA and to ensure that a waiver be granted to a veteran or
his or her surviving spouse anytime collection of an overpayment would
result in financial hardship.
Discussion Draft, to ``Revise Federal Revenue Limits for Proprietary
For-Profit Institutions''
PVA supports this draft bill which would set limits on Federal
funds allowed to be received by for-profit institutions. The ``90-10
rule'' in the Higher Education Act was created by Congress as a market
viability test to protect taxpayers from artificially propping up a
failing college of such low quality that no employer or student would
be willing to pay for it. The law unintentionally creates a loophole
that excludes VA and Department of Defense (DoD) funds in the cap on
Federal funds that colleges otherwise face. The real-world impact of
the loophole means that for every dollar of GI Bill or DoD tuition
assistance, schools become eligible for another $9 of Title IV funds,
thus incentivizing some schools to target military-connected students.
Closing this loophole is necessary to help protect servicemembers,
veterans, and their families. Provisions in this draft legislation
would achieve this by defining Federal funds to include payments from
the GI Bill.
PVA would once again like to thank the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit our views on some of the legislation being
considered today. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on
this legislation and would be happy to take any questions you have for
the record.
TRAGEDY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR SURVIVORS (TAPS)
The Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) is the national
nonprofit organization providing compassionate care for the families of
America's fallen military heroes. TAPS provides peer-based emotional
support, grief and trauma resources, grief seminars and retreats for
adults; Good Grief Camps for children; and casework assistance,
connections to community-based care, online and in-person support
groups, and a 24/7 resource and information helpline for all who have
been affected by a death in the Armed Forces. Services are provided
free of charge.
TAPS was founded in 1994 by Bonnie Carroll following the death of
her husband in a military plane crash in Alaska in 1992. Since then,
TAPS has offered comfort and care to more than 80,000 bereaved
surviving family members. For more information, please visit TAPS.org.
TAPS receives no government grants or funding.
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and distinguished members
of the House Veterans Affairs Committee Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity, the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) thanks
you for the opportunity to make you aware of issues and concerns of
importance to the families we serve, the families of the fallen.
While the mission of TAPS is to offer comfort and support for
surviving families, we are also committed to improving support provided
by the Federal government through the Department of Defense (DoD), the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Education (DoED),
Department of Labor, state governments, government contractors, and
local communities for the families of the fallen - those who fall in
combat, those who fall from invisible wounds and those who die from
accidents, illness or disease.
TAPS was honored to enter into a new and expanded Memorandum of
Agreement with the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2017. This
agreement formalizes what has been a long-standing, informal working
relationship between TAPS and the VA. The services provided by TAPS and
VA are complementary, and in this public-private partnership each will
continue to provide extraordinary services through closer
collaboration.
Under this agreement, TAPS continues to work with surviving
families to identify resources available to them both within the VA and
through private sources. TAPS will also collaborate with the VA in the
areas of education, burial, benefits and entitlements, grief counseling
and other areas of interest.
Draft legislation, to amend title 38, United States code, to authorize
State Approving Agencies to carry out outreach activities
This legislation clarifies language in title 38 to allow State
Approving Agencies (SAAs) to conduct outreach programs.
The SAAs maintain a crucial role in safeguarding the GI Bill at the
state level and ensuring that only quality programs have access to GI
Bill funds. TAPS supports this provision as long as approving programs
and surveys remain their primary goals. TAPS recommends conducting a
smaller pilot program in a few states to determine if it is successful
before allocating larger funds to outreach conducted by the SAAs.
Draft Legislation, to amend title 38 United States code to require
proprietary for-profit educational institutions to comply with
Federal revenue limits to participate in educational assistance
programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs
With the massive improvements made to educational benefits under
the GI Bill over the last 15 years between the Post 9/11 GI Bill and
Forever GI Bill, there has been an even larger target added to the
backs of veterans, survivors, and servicemembers due to the 90/10
loophole.
While closing the 90/10 loophole is a top education priority for
TAPS, we have a lot of concerns with the draft text as written. Mostly,
it only applies to For-Profit schools. While the bulk of the problem
lies within the for-profit industry, there are also bad actors in other
sectors of education. There has also been an uptick in for-profit to
not-for-profit conversions. Most of these schools are not any better as
not-for-profits but are converting to get around the tightened
regulations on the for-profit industry. Schools like Grand Canyon
University have managed to convert to a not-for-profit while still
having their physical campus owned by a for-profit entity. Ashford
University, dealing with extensive legal issues related to SAAs and
approval, has applied to convert to a not-for-profit while still
heavily targeting military-connected students to gain access to their
GI Bill benefits. TAPS is concerned that just closing the 90/10
loophole for the for-profit sector will only cause us to be back here
in a few years to close it for all, after many of these schools convert
to not-for-profits to get around the regulation.
In addition, TAPS is concerned about the VA Committee having
jurisdiction over this issue. The closure of the 90/10 loophole should
reside with the Education & Workforce and HELP Committees, as it is not
just the GI Bill that's impacted but also Tuition Assistance for active
duty servicemembers. TAPS would prefer to see the 90/10 loophole closed
in the Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization or as a stand alone
from one of those Committees.
TAPS recognizes making some progress on this issue is better than
none and would support the passage of the bill if no other compromise
on 90/10 can be made in other Committees. However, our preference would
be a closed 90/10 loophole for all included in the HEA reauthorization.
H.R. 2227, To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to
authorize spouses of servicemembers who incur a catastrophic injury
or illness or die while in military service to terminate leases of
premises and motor vehicles, and for other purposes.
TAPS keeps an extensive database to track the care and support we
provide to surviving families. In researching information for this
testimony we discovered only one case where a surviving spouse was not
allowed to be released from a lease upon the death of her servicemember
husband. TAPS casework assistance connected her with our pro bono legal
partner and they were able to get her released from her lease.
We also queried several of our government partners to see if they
had encountered any problems with surviving spouses being held to their
leases after the active duty death of their servicemember. They had not
encountered any spouses who had this problem.
That said, there may be many surviving spouses, including the
spouse in Representative Busto's district, who encounter a reluctance
on the part of their landlord to release them from their lease after
the active duty death of their servicemember and may be forced to pay
extra rent or termination fees. We applaud Representative Busto for
providing a remedy for this undue burden during a time of grief.
We believe that the language to amend the SCRA included in this
proposed legislation, ``The spouse of the lessee on a lease may
terminate the lease during the one-year period beginning on the date of
the death of the lessee, if the lessee dies while in military service''
serves to codify what should already be an act of kindness and civility
towards a recently bereaved military surviving spouse.
The history of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act dates back to
the Civil War, when a moratorium was passed to suspend certain actions
against Union soldiers and sailors. This included contract enforcement,
bankruptcy, foreclosure and divorce proceedings. This was codified in
the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1918. That act expired
after World War I, but it came back as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil
Relief Act (SSCRA) of 1940.
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003 (SCRA), 50 USC App
Sec. Sec. 501-596, signed into law on December 19, 2003 and amended
December 10, 2004, completely rewrote and replaced the Soldiers' and
Sailors' Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) of 1940. The SCRA (and previously the
SCCRA) protects those persons who serve on active duty for the nation's
defense, from adverse consequences to their legal rights that may
result because of such service, so that such persons may devote their
full attention and all their energies to the nation's defense. The SCRA
strengthens the protections originally granted by the SSCRA, extends
certain protection for dependents of the member on active duty, and
creates new protections for members. The SCRA provides protection for
members in civil court and administrative actions. It also provides
protections for issues involving taxation, house/apartment leases, car
leases, interest rates and insurance.
The SCRA applies to all military members on Federal active duty.
This includes the regular forces, Reserves and National Guard in Title
10 active duty. The SCRA also applies to the Coast Guard and officers
in the Public Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in support of the Armed Forces. In limited
circumstances (i.e., evictions, joint leases), the SCRA may apply to
dependents of the military member. In November 2009, President Obama
signed into law the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act (MSRRA) which
amends the SCRA to provide additional protections to spouses of
servicemembers relating to residency, taxes, and voting rights. The
SCRA applies to all 50 states of the United States and to all
territories (i.e., Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the
Marianas Islands) subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Under the terms of the SCRA, a servicemember may terminate a lease
earlier than the date named in the lease, if the servicemember gives
proper notice and is terminating the lease due to a permanent change of
station (PCS) move or a deployment. The lease must be signed by the
servicemember or on behalf of the servicemember (by the use of a power
of attorney). The protection is extended to the dependent spouse if he/
she needs to terminate the lease during the servicemember's deployment
or PCS. If a spouse enters into a lease on their own name, without the
servicemember, the SCRA does not apply.
TAPS supports the legislation as written.
Draft Text, To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a
requirement relating to the timing of the payment of educational
assistance under the Post 9/11 Educational Assistance Program of
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
Many surviving family members have been negatively impacted due to
overpayments from the VA relating to educational expenses. TAPS
supports the legislation to amend the payment dates and thinks this is
a much needed fix to a long-term problem.
Draft text, To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to study the
link between certain economic factors and veteran suicides.
The largest number of survivors coming to TAPS over the last 5
years have been to suicide loss. Of the 85,000 surviving family members
TAPS supports, 15,000 of them lost a loved one to suicide. With an
estimated 20 veterans dying by suicide a day, it is crucial that we do
research into the factors that impact suicide and fully acknowledge
that economic factors could play a role in it.
TAPS is hopeful that the proposed study could help identify key
factors that VA and DoD could use to prevent future suicides. TAPS
adamantly supports the proposed legislation. We believe the more
information we have the more we can do to prevent future suicides.
Draft Text, to amend title 38, United States Code, to require that
educational institutions abide by Principles of Excellence as a
condition of approval for purposes of the educational assistance
programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other
purposes.
TAPS supports the Principles of Excellence (POE) as a program, but
we do not support the draft legislation. We feel it does very little to
actually provide any protection for students. We have seen top tier
schools opt not to participate in POE, while mid to lower level schools
chose to participate in the program. There is a lot we can do to
further student protections for those using GI Bill benefits, such as
closing the 90/10 loophole, monitoring for-profit to not-for-profit
conversions, preventing schools from accessing GI Bill if less than a
certain percentage of funds goes towards education, and taking away
access to GI Bill for any school facing Federal or state penalties for
violating current laws. We do not think forcing the Principles of
Excellence on schools eligible for GI Bill benefits will be useful. We
also worry that it will discourage top tier universities from wanting
to participate in GI Bill programs in the future.
Draft Text, to amend title 38, United States Code, to require that
certain educational institutions have letters of credit as a
condition of approval for purposes of the educational assistance
programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs and for other
purposes.
TAPS applauds the Committee for this proposal. Mandating a letter
of credit could go a long way in protecting military connected students
in case a school closes and ensuring that the school is held liable if
it closes. TAPS also thinks this will help weed out some of the schools
that do not have good outcome measures and will help ensure that only
quality programs have access to GI Bill funding. TAPS adamantly
supports this measure.
Draft Text, to amend title 38, United States Code, to make certain
improvements in the educational assistance programs of the
Department of Veterans Affairs and for other purposes, Student
Veteran Empowerment Act of 2019.
TAPS was grateful to the Committee for the restoration of benefits
included under the Forever GI Bill in order to restore benefits of
those impacted by the closures of ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges. We
were dismayed that it only covered that time period, but understood it
was cost prohibitive to make it permanent at that time. With several
other school closures since then, we are excited to see that the
Committee is reconsidering making the restoration of benefits permanent
and aligning it with the Department of Education's rules for Pell
Grants and Federal student loans. TAPS fully supports this proposal.
TAPS thanks you for the opportunity to provide this statement for
the record in support of this important legislation.
SVA GRAPHICS
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]